Vikings Message Board.Com

DK Sweets wrote:First off, I would like to say that I'm not offended that you take more sock in other people's opinion than mine. I openly admit that I don't follow college ball or study the draft much.

But this is why I don't take too much stock in draft grades:

Fox 2010 Draft Grades
Teams of note: Panthers (A+), Miami (A), Oakland (A+)

Football Outsiders 2010 Draft Grades
Team of note: Baltimore, Oakland

Fox 2011 Draft Grades
Teams of Note: Denver (C+), Dallas (C+), San Fransisco (C+), Seattle (D)

Football Outsiders 2011 Draft Grades
Teams of note: Detroit, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Dallas, Seattle

It's not that you shouldn't have faith in my opinion, it's that you shouldn't put so much faith in anybody's opinion because even the best in the business are wrong very often.

If you're excited about our draft and it matches what you were seeing going into the process, then that's great and I'm happy for you...honestly, I wish I felt that way, too. But no amount of "expert" analysis or draft graes that say we did awesome is going to alter my opinion on this...because like I said, it's not like these experts are even *usually* right.

I saw some things that didn't excite me. I saw some things that look very promising. To me, that means that this has to be no higher than a B- until the players SHOW me how they fit with the rest of our team and respond to coaching.

And I agree and respect that. From an "on paper" point of view, it's easily an "A" in my eyes but of course, they have to prove that on the field. Nobody knows how these guys are going to play for us but for where we picked a lot of them, you couldn't have asked for better value. Also, it might be more difficult looking at this draft compared to our last two because we didn't have 2 or more first round picks so it might not look as "sexy". But either way, on paper, we had a very good draft. It's just all obviously depending on how they do on the field to know if it's legit or not

The thing that I just didn't understand is how "on paper" it's one of the best draft classes out there and is top 5 on everyone's rankings yet some say it's "C" worthy. I just don't understand where an analysis like that can come from. I can understand something in the "B" range but a "C" baffles me completely. I mean if you don't watch college football, don't watch film breakdown and obviously aren't going off of statistics then how are you coming up with analysis on these players? Highlight tapes on YouTube??

The value we got in later rounds this year should've put it in the "B" range automatically. Then you throw in Waynes and Kendricks and that tops it all off IMO. I feel like some just aren't looking into this as deep as they should be to be making a fair/reasonable judgement

I think the 'draft analysis industry' has totally jumped the shark. McShay's 2016 mock is already posted at ESPN.

It was so funny watching Mel Kiper on the first night of the draft. It looked like his head was going to explode and he was so geeked up verbally that he reminded me of my friends 2 year old when he gets excited. That and some tequila was the best part for me.

I'm definitely a wait and see before grading guy. I get the draft value stuff, but I just feel that it's all made up by the talking heads and a wee bit over the top.

I'd prolly feel different if I was getting paid to focus on it and I can see how people can get deep into the fever of it and how fun it is for them.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:The thing that I just didn't understand is how "on paper" it's one of the best draft classes out there and is top 5 on everyone's rankings yet some say it's "C" worthy. I just don't understand where an analysis like that can come from.

It's already been explained.

Rankings and grades are highly subjective. I gave it a C because it looks like a "boom or bust" draft to me and I don't know which direction it will go. Consequently, I'm viewing it as average. If it works out great, I will certainly look back on it differently.

The value we got in later rounds this year should've put it in the "B" range automatically.

That value is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Clemmings is being touted as a great value but he fell to the 4th for a reason. If that stress fracture proves as problematic as some teams obviously thought it could be, he might be a complete bust. He also looks like a project as a pass protector.

Then you throw in Waynes and Kendricks and that tops it all off IMO. I feel like some just aren't looking into this as deep as they should be to be making a fair/reasonable judgement

Are you sure we're just not making the judgment you want us to make? I look at the Vikes draft and I see quite a few choices based on athletic attributes and potential. That doesn't always translate into production.

People could grade this draft anywhere from an A to a D and I'd have a hard time saying they were wrong. The proof will be in the performance anyway. Let's see how it works out.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:The thing that I just didn't understand is how "on paper" it's one of the best draft classes out there and is top 5 on everyone's rankings yet some say it's "C" worthy. I just don't understand where an analysis like that can come from. I can understand something in the "B" range but a "C" baffles me completely. I mean if you don't watch college football, don't watch film breakdown and obviously aren't going off of statistics then how are you coming up with analysis on these players? Highlight tapes on YouTube??

The value we got in later rounds this year should've put it in the "B" range automatically. Then you throw in Waynes and Kendricks and that tops it all off IMO. I feel like some just aren't looking into this as deep as they should be to be making a fair/reasonable judgement

I agree, I think a lot of these posters giving it anything lower than a B think we should have found sure fire "ready to start" day 1 picks in the first 4 rounds and the fact that we took a couple guys who have to develop in their first year drops the grade for them. I look at it as a "game" to find the best players with the most potential in the long term with the highest % to actually succeed so to me Waynes, Hunter, and clemmings were great picks. I don't care so much about who can start day 1, I care about who can make the most probowls over the next 8 years in our schemes and systems with our coaches.

At the end of the day though everyone gets their own opinion and if enough players bust out (in the bad way) they'd ultimately be right so no sense in getting too worked up about it dude, we -could- be wrong.

mondry wrote:I agree, I think a lot of these posters giving it anything lower than a B think we should have found sure fire "ready to start" day 1 picks in the first 4 rounds and the fact that we took a couple guys who have to develop in their first year drops the grade for them. I look at it as a "game" to find the best players with the most potential in the long term with the highest % to actually succeed so to me Waynes, Hunter, and clemmings were great picks. I don't care so much about who can start day 1, I care about who can make the most probowls over the next 8 years in our schemes and systems with our coaches.

I don't care about who can start on Day 1 either (and, as you already know, I don't view it as a "game"). However, we're still just talking about potential here and different people inevitably possess different views of players. For example, based on the same fundamental criteria you used to describe Clemmings and Hunter as great picks, I see them as "iffy" picks. I tend to think experienced, highly productive players with sufficient athleticism have the highest percentage chance to succeed so I'm not as much a fan of drafting for physical traits and athleticism. I'm not against it but it's a riskier approach, in my view.

At the end of the day though everyone gets their own opinion and if enough players bust out (in the bad way) they'd ultimately be right so no sense in getting too worked up about it dude, we -could- be wrong.

It's worth pointing out that C isn't a bad grade, just an average one.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:The thing that I just didn't understand is how "on paper" it's one of the best draft classes out there and is top 5 on everyone's rankings yet some say it's "C" worthy. I just don't understand where an analysis like that can come from. I can understand something in the "B" range but a "C" baffles me completely. I mean if you don't watch college football, don't watch film breakdown and obviously aren't going off of statistics then how are you coming up with analysis on these players? Highlight tapes on YouTube??

The value we got in later rounds this year should've put it in the "B" range automatically. Then you throw in Waynes and Kendricks and that tops it all off IMO. I feel like some just aren't looking into this as deep as they should be to be making a fair/reasonable judgement

I think we're just viewing value differently. For instance, Daquan Bowers was viewed as a great value pick for Tampa Bay a few years ago because they got him much lower than where he was projected to go. In reality, that pick was terrible value - the could have picked Justin Houston, Randall Cobb, or Demarco Murray.

If a team could have selected Blaine Gabbert or Jamarcus Russell in the second round, it would have been viewed as phenomenal value - at the time. Looking back on those players now, nobody would draft them in any round.

Mothman wrote: It's worth pointing out that C isn't a bad grade, just an average one.

One of the grades got most excited about in College was a C...it meant I was proficient enough to never have to take a math class again!

DK Sweets wrote: I think we're just viewing value differently. For instance, Daquan Bowers was viewed as a great value pick for Tampa Bay a few years ago because they got him much lower than where he was projected to go. In reality, that pick was terrible value - the could have picked Justin Houston, Randall Cobb, or Demarco Murray.

If a team could have selected Blaine Gabbert or Jamarcus Russell in the second round, it would have been viewed as phenomenal value - at the time. Looking back on those players now, nobody would draft them in any round.

Bringing hindsight into it is a totally different beast though, no one can draft based on that.

mondry wrote:
Bringing hindsight into it is a totally different beast though, no one can draft based on that.

It's like rewatching the WSOP and saying "man, that guy picked AA to go all in on and lost, what a blunder...he could have pushed it all on a 7-2 and he would've hit 4 of a kind!

The value is the only thing one can measure a draft based on.

The difficulty comes in evaluating whoever is doing the valuations. For a team having good scouts is critical. For our purposes of evaluating the Vikings draft it really comes down to how much faith you put in the Media scouts and talent evaluators.

mondry wrote:
Bringing hindsight into it is a totally different beast though, no one can draft based on that.

No, but it speaks to what represents actual value.

Rankings are very subjective and determining value based on the pre-draft rankings gets pretty dicey because they can be way far off target. I realize that's the best info we have before the draft but the actual draft order itself probably says as much, if not more, about the value of most players than either pre-draft rankings or post-draft grades.

Mothman wrote: No, but it speaks to what represents actual value.

Rankings are very subjective and determining value based on the pre-draft rankings gets pretty dicey because they can be way far off target. I realize that's the best info we have before the draft but the actual draft order itself probably says as much, if not more, about the value of most players than either pre-draft rankings or post-draft grades.

Great post!

fiestavike wrote: It's like rewatching the WSOP and saying "man, that guy picked AA to go all in on and lost, what a blunder...he could have pushed it all on a 7-2 and he would've hit 4 of a kind!

The value is the only thing one can measure a draft based on.

The difficulty comes in evaluating whoever is doing the valuations. For a team having good scouts is critical. For our purposes of evaluating the Vikings draft it really comes down to how much faith you put in the Media scouts and talent evaluators.

No, you measure a draft on whether or not you get good players. Which is why draft report cards before the rookies have even made it to camp are as useless as male nipples.

Mothman wrote: No, but it speaks to what represents actual value.

Rankings are very subjective and determining value based on the pre-draft rankings gets pretty dicey because they can be way far off target. I realize that's the best info we have before the draft but the actual draft order itself probably says as much, if not more, about the value of most players than either pre-draft rankings or post-draft grades.

Then if that's the case, you can grade every draft we had as a "C". Was Floyd a sure starter? No. Was Rhodes? Yeah simply because we had NO CBs so we had no choice. Was Kalil? Yeah, he was the 4th pick and we had no LT. Smith? Yeah we had awful safeties.

Point is, there was no sure thing that Rhodes, Floyd, and Smith were some studs at the time and were going to be stars. They were all later first round picks. If you're basing a "C" off of a "wait and see" type thing then yeah I suppose but when you look on PAPER, a lot of our picks this year can contribute in a good way. On paper though this draft is an A and at worst a B when it comes to value and filling needs with quality players. Waynes was the most pro ready CB just like Teddy was the most pro ready QB and it showed.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me but personally I am more than happy with this draft. Zimmer went heavy on D and isn't just going to let Spielman draft duds without any say. He knows what he can get out of these guys and I have 100% faith.

I mean I honestly want to know what would be the "better pick" in your eyes or anyone else's in this situation. You could say the same thing about anyone we picked. I already justified why we didnt "have" to draft Parker. So say we drafted Dupree or Parker or Peters or whoever....of course it's a "boom or bust" type thing until you see them on the field. So like I said, you could rank every draft as a C if you're going to base it on that. I feel like this poll is based more off of "do you like the talent we drafted?" rather than "well it's just boom or bust so we're giving it an average grade no matter what". You could literally say that about every NFL team drafting. By judging TALENT, this is an A-B draft. I see no way anyone can give this a C by looking at and studying the talent of the guys we drafted which I have done. An argument like this is really going nowhere if you're going to look at it as boom or bust. Nobody knows how these guys will be on the field so in turn, you judge it based on the talent we drafted and the talent of these players stretches through just about every round hence why I give it an A. Simple as that

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Then if that's the case, you can grade every draft we had as a "C". Was Floyd a sure starter? No. Was Rhodes? Yeah simply because we had NO CBs so we had no choice. Was Kalil? Yeah, he was the 4th pick and we had no LT. Smith? Yeah we had awful safeties.

Point is, there was no sure thing that Rhodes, Floyd, and Smith were some studs at the time and were going to be stars. They were all later first round picks. If you're basing a "C" off of a "wait and see" type thing then yeah I suppose but when you look on PAPER, a lot of our picks this year can contribute in a good way. On paper though this draft is an A and at worst a B when it comes to value and filling needs with quality players. Waynes was the most pro ready CB just like Teddy was the most pro ready QB and it showed.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me but personally I am more than happy with this draft. Zimmer went heavy on D and isn't just going to let Spielman draft duds without any say. He knows what he can get out of these guys and I have 100% faith.

I mean I honestly want to know what would be the "better pick" in your eyes or anyone else's in this situation. You could say the same thing about anyone we picked. I already justified why we didnt "have" to draft Parker. So say we drafted Dupree or Parker or Peters or whoever....of course it's a "boom or bust" type thing until you see them on the field. So like I said, you could rank every draft as a C if you're going to base it on that. I feel like this poll is based more off of "do you like the talent we drafted?" rather than "well it's just boom or bust so we're giving it an average grade no matter what". You could literally say that about every NFL team drafting. By judging TALENT, this is an A-B draft. I see no way anyone can give this a C by looking at and studying the talent of the guys we drafted which I have done. An argument like this is really going nowhere if you're going to look at it as boom or bust. Nobody knows how these guys will be on the field so in turn, you judge it based on the talent we drafted and the talent of these players stretches through just about every round hence why I give it an A. Simple as that

lol, I wrote a similar post but decided it wasn't worth the time, I admire your ability to stick with it!

In Jim's defense, I imagine his ideal player would be like Deandre Hopkins and CJ Mosley instead of Cordarelle Patterson and Anthony Barr. I feel this is pretty much the perfect comparison for this discussion. Sure they're less physically talented with lower upsides compared to Barr / Patterson but they are much better "foot ball players" coming out of college so they're not so much boom or bust. I still cry myself to sleep knowing we didn't get my boy Hopkins and seeing Patterson struggle so hard! If we had a draft full of Hopkins and Mosley's I'm sure he'd give it an A+, who those players were this draft though I'm not so sure.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Then if that's the case, you can grade every draft we had as a "C".

Was Floyd a sure starter? No. Was Rhodes? Yeah simply because we had NO CBs so we had no choice. Was Kalil? Yeah, he was the 4th pick and we had no LT. Smith? Yeah we had awful safeties.

Point is, there was no sure thing that Rhodes, Floyd, and Smith were some studs at the time and were going to be stars. They were all later first round picks. If you're basing a "C" off of a "wait and see" type thing then yeah I suppose but when you look on PAPER, a lot of our picks this year can contribute in a good way. On paper though this draft is an A and at worst a B when it comes to value and filling needs with quality players. Waynes was the most pro ready CB just like Teddy was the most pro ready QB and it showed.

I don't know how many other ways to say the same thing. I'm basing a C off my perception of the criteria (players chosen, spots chosen, needs addressed, etc.). You have a different view. That's fine but value is subjective. What constitutes "quality players" is subjective. Opinions are inevitably going to vary. You say that on paper, a lot of the Vikings picks this year can contribute in a good way. That remains to be seen but even if we assume it's true, what year isn't that true "on paper"? We hear the same thing every year.

I mean I honestly want to know what would be the "better pick" in your eyes or anyone else's in this situation. You could say the same thing about anyone we picked. I already justified why we didnt "have" to draft Parker. So say we drafted Dupree or Parker or Peters or whoever....of course it's a "boom or bust" type thing until you see them on the field.

The draft isn't about a single pick. If we were just talking about Waynes, I'd give a higher grade. I liked that pick but Waynes does not the represent the Vikings entire draft.

So like I said, you could rank every draft as a C if you're going to base it on that. I feel like this poll is based more off of "do you like the talent we drafted?" rather than "well it's just boom or bust so we're giving it an average grade no matter what".

I didn't give an average grade "no matter what". I gave an average grade based on my assessment of the draft.

You could literally say that about every NFL team drafting. By judging TALENT, this is an A-B draft. I see no way anyone can give this a C by looking at and studying the talent of the guys we drafted which I have done. An argument like this is really going nowhere if you're going to look at it as boom or bust. Nobody knows how these guys will be on the field so in turn, you judge it based on the talent we drafted and the talent of these players stretches through just about every round hence why I give it an A. Simple as that

I based my assessment on talent, fit, skill, perceived potential, written evaluations, games I watched, game footage I watched, etc. We simply arrived at a different conclusion.