Who did the Vikings want at 8?

[StumpHunter]

1 for 30 is infinitely more successful than 0 - 48, but you are right, even the teams that have drafted better are getting 1 guy at best in those later rounds.

Philly and Baltimore are probably the best. Philly drafted arguably the best 6th or 7th rounder since 2011 in Jason Kelce along with Jalen Mills using just 29 picks in those rounds. Baltimore drafted Tyrod Taylor and Waller, both of whom didn't end up producing anything for them, but did go on to provide value for other teams. They also drafted their starting center, Bozeman, in 2018. Baltimore did that with just 21 picks.

That is about it for teams with multiple success stories in those rounds, and just more evidence that trading back for those picks is pointless.

The only ones I'd even give you on that list are Jason Kelce and Waller (over time). Jalen Mills has been a burnt toast for the majority of his career. And Tyrod Taylor amounted to nothing more than a good backup QB in the end. But no this doesnt prove that it's pointless because there are the Jason Kelce's and Darren Waller's out there. They dont come often but they are indeed there.

And AGAIN, this isnt effecting us in the mid rounds to move down. If someone walked up to you and offered you a free Mega Millions lottery ticket, are you going to accept it? Yeah why wouldnt you. This is no different. Your chances of hitting the lottery are slim, but if it's not costing you anything, why not take it?

It isn't free. Every time we trade down it costs us the opportunity to draft one of the players drafted where we were at to where we draft next. It is like trading a lottery ticket with 1 in 4 odds of winning for one with 1 in 10 and 2 with a 1 in a 1000 odds.

[fiestavike]

The only ones I'd even give you on that list are Jason Kelce and Waller (over time). Jalen Mills has been a burnt toast for the majority of his career. And Tyrod Taylor amounted to nothing more than a good backup QB in the end. But no this doesnt prove that it's pointless because there are the Jason Kelce's and Darren Waller's out there. They dont come often but they are indeed there.

And AGAIN, this isnt effecting us in the mid rounds to move down. If someone walked up to you and offered you a free Mega Millions lottery ticket, are you going to accept it? Yeah why wouldnt you. This is no different. Your chances of hitting the lottery are slim, but if it's not costing you anything, why not take it?

It isn't free. Every time we trade down it costs us the opportunity to draft one of the players drafted where we were at to where we draft next. It is like trading a lottery ticket with 1 in 4 odds of winning for one with 1 in 10 and 2 with a 1 in a 1000 odds.

Nope. They are trading a 1 in 10 chance for a 1 in 10 chance and adding some extra shots to get cheap contributors.

[Pondering Her Percy]

It isn't free. Every time we trade down it costs us the opportunity to draft one of the players drafted where we were at to where we draft next. It is like trading a lottery ticket with 1 in 4 odds of winning for one with 1 in 10 and 2 with a 1 in a 1000 odds.

Nope. They are trading a 1 in 10 chance for a 1 in 10 chance and adding some extra shots to get cheap contributors.

Yes that's exactly it! For example, the odds of hitting on a 3rd round pick at pick 5 vs. the odds of hitting on a 3rd round pick at pick 15 are practically the exact same. They dont even come close to dropping from a 1 in 4 chance to a 1 in 10 chance. I'm not even sure where you're coming up with that.

Like I said before, it's not like we're trading out of round 1 completely just to gain some late rounders. We're moving back in the middle rounds to gain late round freebies. There is no harm in it. Not saying it's going to work every time because clearly that's not the case. But why not take that chance at landing someone like a Jason Kelce if you have the opportunity. Clearly if Spielman is honing in on one player that he really wants in the mid rounds, he takes them. He did that this year. But if there are a handful of players that they want, you can trade down, still draft one guy you like and gain some freebies. That's the point of trading down. That's why teams do it.

Look at the Falcons this year. They are sitting at 4 with a chance to grab a once in a generation talent (Kyle Pitts). The last thing Atlanta needs every year is offensive help. Their defense is horrid year after year but they werent passing up on a generational talent to move back and grab some every year talent. They couldve traded down and received tons of offers but didnt budge. That's the right move. It's not like Spielman is passing on the Kyle Pitts' of the world so he can gain 7th round picks. He's doing this in the mid rounds. He's passing on a gamble so he can get multiple gambles. You're looking for contributors in the late rounds. If you land a Jason Kelce, more power to you and doing this gives you that slim chance. But if you can find guys that can contribute, then that's a good 6th or 7th round pick.

I'm honestly not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[StumpHunter]

It isn't free. Every time we trade down it costs us the opportunity to draft one of the players drafted where we were at to where we draft next. It is like trading a lottery ticket with 1 in 4 odds of winning for one with 1 in 10 and 2 with a 1 in a 1000 odds.

Nope. They are trading a 1 in 10 chance for a 1 in 10 chance and adding some extra shots to get cheap contributors.

Danielle Hunter had the same odds of being successful as Sean Mannion, Carl Davis or Chaz Green? Guys who would have been available where we picked after trading back if Hunter had been picked by someone else?

Again I will ask, who are the these "cheap contributors" that the Vikings would have regretted not drafting?

[VikingsVictorious]

Nope. They are trading a 1 in 10 chance for a 1 in 10 chance and adding some extra shots to get cheap contributors.

Danielle Hunter had the same odds of being successful as Sean Mannion, Carl Davis or Chaz Green? Guys who would have been available where we picked after trading back if Hunter had been picked by someone else?

Again I will ask, who are the these "cheap contributors" that the Vikings would have regretted not drafting?

I said I was done engaging you in this, but one last try. You talk about us trading back and getting Hunter. What if somebody had taken him inbetween. On the other hand if we hadn't traded back we may not have selected Hunter at all. You're trying to turn a success story about trading back into a failure. The trade back we did before taking Hunter based on the results was an excellent move. The many trade backs before taking Mattison were all excellent moves. Trading back or trading up always has a risk reward element to it. There is no right or wrong way to do it. Rick gets paid the big bucks to know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

[StumpHunter]

Danielle Hunter had the same odds of being successful as Sean Mannion, Carl Davis or Chaz Green? Guys who would have been available where we picked after trading back if Hunter had been picked by someone else?

Again I will ask, who are the these "cheap contributors" that the Vikings would have regretted not drafting?

I said I was done engaging you in this, but one last try. You talk about us trading back and getting Hunter. What if somebody had taken him inbetween. On the other hand if we hadn't traded back we may not have selected Hunter at all. You're trying to turn a success story about trading back into a failure. The trade back we did before taking Hunter based on the results was an excellent move. The many trade backs before taking Mattison were all excellent moves. Trading back or trading up always has a risk reward element to it. There is no right or wrong way to do it. Rick gets paid the big bucks to know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

How can you call a move excellent when it didn't result in anything positive and could have cost us the best two picks in Rick Spielman's career?

As I have said multiple times, I am not saying it is a sure thing these moves have cost us anything. It is likely they haven't in fact, because we were EXTREMELY lucky no team drafted Hunter and Diggs before we picked again. That lucky could easily change, which is why I hate the strategy of passing on quality prospects to pick up meaningless picks in the 6th and 7th rounds.

Not to mention that coveting those late round picks that do not help us in any significant way might be causing Rick to not trade up when he really likes a player in the 4th or 5th rounds.

[VikingsVictorious]

I said I was done engaging you in this, but one last try. You talk about us trading back and getting Hunter. What if somebody had taken him inbetween. On the other hand if we hadn't traded back we may not have selected Hunter at all. You're trying to turn a success story about trading back into a failure. The trade back we did before taking Hunter based on the results was an excellent move. The many trade backs before taking Mattison were all excellent moves. Trading back or trading up always has a risk reward element to it. There is no right or wrong way to do it. Rick gets paid the big bucks to know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

How can you call a move excellent when it didn't result in anything positive and could have cost us the best two picks in Rick Spielman's career?

As I have said multiple times, I am not saying it is a sure thing these moves have cost us anything. It is likely they haven't in fact, because we were EXTREMELY lucky no team drafted Hunter and Diggs before we picked again. That lucky could easily change, which is why I hate the strategy of passing on quality prospects to pick up meaningless picks in the 6th and 7th rounds.

Not to mention that coveting those late round picks that do not help us in any significant way might be causing Rick to not trade up when he really likes a player in the 4th or 5th rounds.

I tried. You are blind. It could have been the very act of trading back that got us Hunter and Diggs. Also you continue to say we got nothing positive which is obviously not true. Many contributing players were acquired with late round picks. Positive stuff. I guess no trade should ever be made because the team trading back will never get anything positive out of it. Go Vikings. Go Kirk, Go Rick. Go Zim.

[StumpHunter]

I tried. You are blind. It could have been the very act of trading back that got us Hunter and Diggs. Also you continue to say we got nothing positive which is obviously not true. Many contributing players were acquired with late round picks. Positive stuff.

Being blind is accepting a strategy by the GM, that has seen no real results as "excellent" just because he is the GM of your team. Face it, if the Packers', Bears' or Lions' GM was 0 for 48 on 6th and 7th round picks after emphasizing getting as many of those as he could, you would be pointing it out as a failure of that GM. Because it is your GM though, you think it is a great strategy.

That is fine, you are a fan and blindly accepting every move your GM makes as great is how you express that fandom and how you enjoy rooting for the team. Don't rip me for not being willing to do the same and for seeing the reality through my purple shaded glasses.

Again, what are the positives we have seen out of those trade backs? Who are the players we would have missed if they had never set foot on the field in a purple jersey?

I guess no trade should ever be made because the team trading back will never get anything positive out of it

You must have missed my post where I agreed with you that the trade down we did in the first was the right move every time. Talk about a straw man.

Trading down is fine if you risk little to gain a lot. That is what the Vikings did this year. Most years they risk very little to a whole lot to gain nothing and that is not fine.

[Pondering Her Percy]

There's just no getting through to him at this point. He clearly doesnt comprehend what we are saying and will clearly fight it all the way to his grave. Just a waste of time and energy.

[StumpHunter]

There's just no getting through to him at this point. He clearly doesnt comprehend what we are saying and will clearly fight it all the way to his grave. Just a waste of time and energy.

Yep, you will never convince me that a strategy that got us:
Demarcus Love
Mistral Raymond
Trevor Guyton
Jeff Bacca
Everett Dawkins
Jabari Price
Anone Exum
Shamar Stephen
Tyrus Thompson
Mycole Pruitt
BJ Dubose
Weatherly
Tocho
Stacey Cole
Buckey Hodges
Odenigbo

Had a meaningfully positive impact on this team.

[Rhodes Closed]

There's just no getting through to him at this point. He clearly doesnt comprehend what we are saying and will clearly fight it all the way to his grave. Just a waste of time and energy.

Yep, you will never convince me that a strategy that got us:
Demarcus Love
Mistral Raymond
Trevor Guyton
Jeff Bacca
Everett Dawkins
Jabari Price
Anone Exum
Shamar Stephen
Tyrus Thompson
Mycole Pruitt
BJ Dubose
Weatherly
Tocho
Stacey Cole
Buckey Hodges
Odenigbo

Had a meaningfully positive impact on this team.

Just as you can't prove it had a meaningfully negative impact as we hit on genuinely good players alongside those picks. So why don't you just pack it up and call it a day, dude. Nobody cares anymore.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Yep, you will never convince me that a strategy that got us:
Demarcus Love
Mistral Raymond
Trevor Guyton
Jeff Bacca
Everett Dawkins
Jabari Price
Anone Exum
Shamar Stephen
Tyrus Thompson
Mycole Pruitt
BJ Dubose
Weatherly
Tocho
Stacey Cole
Buckey Hodges
Odenigbo

Had a meaningfully positive impact on this team.

Just as you can't prove it had a meaningfully negative impact as we hit on genuinely good players alongside those picks. So why don't you just pack it up and call it a day, dude. Nobody cares anymore.

Excellent point! Thank you!

[StumpHunter]

Yep, you will never convince me that a strategy that got us:
Demarcus Love
Mistral Raymond
Trevor Guyton
Jeff Bacca
Everett Dawkins
Jabari Price
Anone Exum
Shamar Stephen
Tyrus Thompson
Mycole Pruitt
BJ Dubose
Weatherly
Tocho
Stacey Cole
Buckey Hodges
Odenigbo

Had a meaningfully positive impact on this team.

Just as you can't prove it had a meaningfully negative impact as we hit on genuinely good players alongside those picks. So why don't you just pack it up and call it a day, dude. Nobody cares anymore.

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

[VikingsVictorious]

Just as you can't prove it had a meaningfully negative impact as we hit on genuinely good players alongside those picks. So why don't you just pack it up and call it a day, dude. Nobody cares anymore.

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

We have provided the positive again and again and again and again and again and again.
We have got contributing players from those late picks. That is without any question whatsoever a positive. So you move the goalposts and act like for a 6th or 7th round pick to matter at all it has to turn into a HUGE IMPACT PLAYER. We don't need that for the pick to be a positive. You reject all positive picks. So you are lying saying we have not provided that evidence and if you can simply reject the evidence you will in your mind never be wrong. That is really messed up.

[VikingTom]

Just as you can't prove it had a meaningfully negative impact as we hit on genuinely good players alongside those picks. So why don't you just pack it up and call it a day, dude. Nobody cares anymore.

I am not claiming I know there is a negative impact. Others are claiming a positive one, which I am asking for evidence of. Which no one provides, because there is none.

People obviously care or they would stop responding. At which point this whole conversation ends.

Actually I think people are bored. No other reason for this thread to keep going. Next week mandatory mini camp begins. Perhaps then there will be some real meat to discuss.