Vikings draft CB Mackenzie Alexander

[dead_poet]

I think that's pretty much what happens, John, and I'm sure personal bias and personal favorites are a part of the picture. Coaches and GMs "fall in love" with certain prospects. If teams just ranked players and then rigidly followed that exact order by automatically selecting the top pick available on their board, there would be no need for a "war room" or discussion during the draft. Heck, an intern could just follow the board, make the selections and everyone else could take vacation, their work already done by preparing the board in the first place. A certain degree of flexibility, and some discussion, is definitely involved. Your example of Doctson and Apple is a good choice because it illustrates the potential nature of a draft war room discussion and/or how variables may get worked into the board. Add in that every team's board will have differences and there's rarely, if ever, going to be a unanimous "best player available" at most spots in the draft. Furthermore, the idea that every time a team selected a player, they were literally taking the top player available on their board is an assumption, since we don't have access to their board.

What is the likelihood that the Vikes didn't have a single player with a higher grade than the German Unicorn when they picked him vs. the likelihood that they simply thought he was worth taking at that spot and they wanted him?

There's also the consideration of best "right now" vs. best later/higher ceiling. Perhaps that's where zee German came in. He's likely not better at his position than another player at his, but due to his athleticism he could be considerably higher/better in 2-3 years than than the other player as well.

[Mothman]

There's also the consideration of best "right now" vs. best later/higher ceiling. Perhaps that's where zee German came in. He's likely not better at his position than another player at his, but due to his athleticism he could be considerably higher/better in 2-3 years than than the other player as well.

Exactly.

[Texas Vike]

in response to the above discussion:

I think you're right, John, and I love that the German Unicorn has stuck as his name. The mythical creature from an exotic land with quasi-magical work out numbers and a youtube highlight reel against lads rounded up at the local pub.... it all has an element of fantasy hovering around it, so the name applies well.

Having watched Kolby Listenbee (TCU, WR), who went just after GU, for the past few years, I have zero doubt that he's worlds better than Mo Bo/ German Unicorn right now. The guy is blazing fast (literally a track record holder) and catches the ball well. When Doctson went down, he became the offense.

But as DP stated, it's a questions of better now vs. better potential ceiling. I personally would have opted for Listenbee, as I don't believe in Unicorns, but what the hell... it's unlikely either will ever amount to much in the NFL anyways.

[John_Viveiros]

What is the likelihood that the Vikes didn't have a single player with a higher grade than the German Unicorn when they picked him vs. the likelihood that they simply thought he was worth taking at that spot and they wanted him?

I think Mike Zimmer wanted to "make dreams come true". I truly think it was a throwaway pick, and I'm not exactly sure why they thought that they could do that with such valuable capital as an NFL draft choice. but I guess there's some points for making the Vikings the focus of this feel-good story.

[Crax]

I don't think there is much doubt that he's going to work hard. Video about growing up helping pick oranges and still doing it just weeks before the draft

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=154406 ... 25441157=1

[Jordysghost]

I think Mike Zimmer wanted to "make dreams come true". I truly think it was a throwaway pick, and I'm not exactly sure why they thought that they could do that with such valuable capital as an NFL draft choice. but I guess there's some points for making the Vikings the focus of this feel-good story.

Zimmer sure is a compassionate fellow in your eyes, huh?

I think late round picks are good for taking flyers on guys with alot of raw potential and such, I have no doubt Morrits was picked because the Vikings would like to develop him into a more refined player.

We took a dude named Janis in the 7th of 2014, same deal for the most part, lots of raw athletic ability that needs to be refined.

[Jordysghost]

I think that's pretty much what happens, John, and I'm sure personal bias and personal favorites are a part of the picture. Coaches and GMs "fall in love" with certain prospects. If teams just ranked players and then rigidly followed that exact order by automatically selecting the top pick available on their board, there would be no need for a "war room" or discussion during the draft. Heck, an intern could just follow the board, make the selections and everyone else could take vacation, their work already done by preparing the board in the first place. A certain degree of flexibility, and some discussion, is definitely involved. Your example of Doctson and Apple is a good choice because it illustrates the potential nature of a draft war room discussion and/or how variables may get worked into the board. Add in that every team's board will have differences and there's rarely, if ever, going to be a unanimous "best player available" at most spots in the draft. Furthermore, the idea that every time a team selected a player, they were literally taking the top player available on their board is an assumption, since we don't have access to their board.

What is the likelihood that the Vikes didn't have a single player with a higher grade than the German Unicorn when they picked him vs. the likelihood that they simply thought he was worth taking at that spot and they wanted him?

For having accused me talking in extremes, you have a pretty black and white view on the matter. Noone is saying teams stay true to their draftboard a hundred percent of the time. I dont think anybody is saying they should do that either.

But to answer your question, I think ceiling and potential come into play when deciding on who you deem as the "Best available player", not just the current status qou.

[Mothman]

For having accused me talking in extremes, you have a pretty black and white view on the matter. Noone is saying teams stay true to their draftboard a hundred percent of the time.

There's nothing "black and white" about my view at all. The whole point is that it isn't simplistic, that there's a certain degree of flexibility involved. It's the opposite of a rigid, "black and white" view and a far cry from you taking my simple point that claiming a particular player is the "best player" on the board is subjective and immediately launching into a straw man argument about "grabbing any old scrub" and ignoring the efforts of the scouting department.

[Jordysghost]

There's nothing "black and white" about my view at all. The whole point is that it isn't simplistic, that there's a certain degree of flexibility involved. It's the opposite of a rigid, "black and white" view and a far cry from you taking my simple point that claiming a particular player is the "best player" on the board is subjective and immediately launching into a straw man argument about "grabbing any old scrub" and ignoring the efforts of the scouting department.

Is there anything about the draft that isnt subjective? I have always maintained that it isn't as simple as taking the highest player on the board, and yet that in no way suggests that the very concept of BPA is fallacious and arbitrary. I agree a hundred and ten percent, there certainly is a degree of flexibility involved, that is for sure.

What ISNT subjective about the draft? What is the point you are making with that comment? Because at most points in the draft there most definitely IS typically going to be a player that grades out above the rest, even if just slightly, on a teams given draftboard, what difference does it make that another team may have a different looking draftboard?

[fiestavike]

There's nothing "black and white" about my view at all. The whole point is that it isn't simplistic, that there's a certain degree of flexibility involved. It's the opposite of a rigid, "black and white" view and a far cry from you taking my simple point that claiming a particular player is the "best player" on the board is subjective and immediately launching into a straw man argument about "grabbing any old scrub" and ignoring the efforts of the scouting department.

There isn't a ton of time to make these selections. The way teams stack the boards leading up to the draft, they probably could just have an intern make the selections once the actual draft roles around.

I found it interesting that most teams only have between 75-150 players on their boards! I heard on NFLN that the Patriots board ran empty a couple years ago and they selected a Longsnapper in the 4th round, or something like that.

Anyway, if a team trusts their scouting department, it seems that the picks should more or less "make themselves" if they believe in a BPA philosophy. How many teams really do this though? Doesn't seem like many.

[Jordysghost]

There isn't a ton of time to make these selections. The way teams stack the boards leading up to the draft, they probably could just have an intern make the selections once the actual draft roles around.

I found it interesting that most teams only have between 75-150 players on their boards! I heard on NFLN that the Patriots board ran empty a couple years ago and they selected a Longsnapper in the 4th round, or something like that.

Anyway, if a team trusts their scouting department, it seems that the picks should more or less "make themselves" if they believe in a BPA philosophy. How many teams really do this though? Doesn't seem like many.

I dont think there is a single team strictly follows BPA to a tee a hundred percent of the time, and that is proabably a good thing. Some teams just fall at different points on the scale, but I would rather go all BPA, then all needs any day of the week.

[Mothman]

Is there anything about the draft that isnt subjective? I have always maintained that it isn't as simple as taking the highest player on the board, and yet that in no way suggests that the very concept of BPA is fallacious and arbitrary.

I didn't suggest that either. That's your straw man argument, not my point of view.

What is the point you are making with that comment?

Asked and answered already. I explained the point to you yesterday and in response, you posted "I hundred percent agree".

[Jordysghost]

I said those words in response to two things, 1. That BPA is often used as a buzzword on draft day, and 2. That there is always a certain degree of flexibility in regards to draft day philosphy, nowhere in there can I find anything even close to you explaining what your repeated "BPA is subjective" comments are intended to illustrate.

So please, if you still feel like it, humor an ol' no count puker like myself.

[Mothman]

I said those words in response to two things, 1. That BPA is often used as a buzzword on draft day, and 2. That there is always a certain degree of flexibility in regards to draft day philosphy, nowhere in there can I find anything even close to you explaining what your repeated "BPA is subjective" comments are intended to illustrate.

So please, if you still feel like it, humor an ol' no count puker like myself.

It sounds like you just read it!

As I wrote yesterday, my point was that "BPA" has become overused rhetoric, used to justify any pick fans like and/or want to defend, especially after the first round.

That's it. That was the point.

[Jordysghost]

It sounds like you just read it!

As I wrote yesterday, my point was that "BPA" has become overused rhetoric, used to justify any pick fans like and/or want to defend, especially after the first round.

That's it. That was the point.

"BPA is subjective' is quite an odd way to say "BPA has become and overused rhetoric".