Grading The Vikings 2015 Draft

[Mothman]

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.

You're partially right. It's not that one or the other type represent my ideal player. I have no problem with the team selecting players like Barr or Patterson. There's an obvious upside to drafting players with that sort of size and athleticism but it's a bigger roll of the dice than drafting players with size, athleticism and a more advanced skill set in place.

Mike said "Zimmer went heavy on D and isn't just going to let Spielman draft duds without any say" but for all we know, they probably drafted some duds anyway. That's usually the case (and with every team).

I don't see the big deal here. We're talking about subjective grades for players who haven't played an NFL down yet so the idea that there's a "right" grade or a "wrong" grade is ridiculous. I don't know, you don't know. Mike doesn't know, the various draft experts out there providing grades don't know... it's all just an exercise to keep us entertained in the offseason, after the draft ends.

[fiestavike]

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.

I guess it depends on what you are trying to grade exactly. The selections or the players?

Maybe this is the heart of the disagreement in this thread?

If you are grading the players, of course you grade the draft class based on how good they turn out to be as Pros. If you are grading the selections, you have to go by the value of the selection. Using hindsight for that process isn't applicable. You can only go by what we know now (either your own analysis or the analysis of "experts"). Obviously there are too many unknowns for grades on selections to mean much. Its largely academic.

I do think this is where PHP and Mothman aren't on the same page...you aren't trying to grade the same thing. Mothman would probably have rated any draft a C because a C is average and until players prove how good they are going to be, he's sticking with something close to a C. In other words he rejects the entire idea of grading selections.

I gave it a C+, mainly because I think it's too early to draw any conclusions and that's an average grade. I have no idea if this will prove to be a good draft class for the Vikes or not

PHP is grading selections based on projected values and a lot of folks don't want to play along.

I like the draft class and I bet there is some slight correlation between highly regarded selections and highly regarded players, despite the hundreds of particular examples that run in the opposite direction.

[fiestavike]

This is kind of how I view the draft...



The shots right at the hoop and the slam dunks are good shots...even when they turn out to be a red X.

Depending on the player taking them (your scouts, your GM, team needs), the shots out at the 3 point line can be good shots. I think we attempted several of those this draft. Again, even if its a red X, an open 3 from a guy who can hit that shot is a good shot...unless, maybe, your in transition and give up a wide open layup for the 3. (So yes, I would have taken Deandre Hopkins over Cordarelle Patterson)

You can have a game where all your good shots turn out to be red Xs and maybe you hit a few wild turnarounds as the clocks running down (like that one green dot on the chart that is behind the backboard). But over time the more good shots you take, the more you win.

In other words its better to judge by shot location than by whether its a green dot or a red x.

I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else.

[Mothman]

I guess it depends on what you are trying to grade exactly. The selections or the players?

Maybe this is the heart of the disagreement in this thread?

If you are grading the players, of course you grade the draft class based on how good they turn out to be as Pros. If you are grading the selections, you have to go by the value of the selection. Using hindsight for that process isn't applicable. You can only go by what we know now (either your own analysis or the analysis of "experts"). Obviously there are too many unknowns for grades on selections to mean much. Its largely academic.

I do think this is where PHP and Mothman aren't on the same page...you aren't trying to grade the same thing. Mothman would probably have rated any draft a C because a C is average and until players prove how good they are going to be, he's sticking with something close to a C. In other words he rejects the entire idea of grading selections.

Except I don't...

As you said, it's largely academic. I graded based on players and selections but I put limited stock in pre-draft rankings. I don't reject grading selections but I reject the idea that value is determined by pre-draft rankings and projections available to the public and I think there are other criteria to be considered when evaluating a selection too (like scheme, fit, need, etc,). As I said yesterday, the actual order in which players are selected probably says as much, if not more, about the value of most players as the pre-draft projections do.

I wouldn't give every draft a C. I simply gave this one a C+ because, in my personal assessment, the players the Vikes chose and the choices they made added up to an average draft. That's just my perception and it could be way off target but it's where I settled on the subject.

PHP is grading selections based on projected values and a lot of folks don't want to play along.

That's true.

That statement of mine you quoted above seems to have misled people. I used the word "mainly" because I wanted to emphasize that I wasn't basing my grade solely on the fact that it was too early to draw conclusions. It seems to have left the opposite impression.

I like the draft class and I bet there is some slight correlation between highly regarded selections and highly regarded players, despite the hundreds of particular examples that run in the opposite direction.

There's some correlation but those pre-draft assessments are obviously unreliable as a measure of how good players will be at the next level.

[fiestavike]

There's some correlation but those pre-draft assessments are obviously unreliable as a measure of how good players will be at the next level.

In any particular case I completely agree. Over the entirety of the draft, and over the entirety of all drafts, I bet that correlation gains steam.

[Mothman]

This is kind of how I view the draft...



The shots right at the hoop and the slam dunks are good shots...even when they turn out to be a red X.

Depending on the player taking them (your scouts, your GM, team needs), the shots out at the 3 point line can be good shots. I think we attempted several of those this draft. Again, even if its a red X, an open 3 from a guy who can hit that shot is a good shot...unless, maybe, your in transition and give up a wide open layup for the 3. (So yes, I would have taken Deandre Hopkins over Cordarelle Patterson)

You can have a game where all your good shots turn out to be red Xs and maybe you hit a few wild turnarounds as the clocks running down (like that one green dot on the chart that is behind the backboard). But over time the more good shots you take, the more you win.

In other words its better to judge by shot location than by whether its a green dot or a red x.

I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else.

It makes sense but I think it's a difficult correlation to make with the draft. I see your point but what constitutes a "good shot" in the draft? One of the reasons I graded this draft as I did is because I don't think the Vikes took such great shots.

[fiestavike]

It makes sense but I think it's a difficult correlation to make with the draft. I see your point but what constitutes a "good shot" in the draft? One of the reasons I graded this draft as I did is because I don't think the Vikes took such great shots.

In which case, I think its fair of PHP to ask who you would have rather selected at any given pick in order to increase the draft grade from your perspective.

I agree the challenge with the analogy is what constitutes a "good shot", and for arguments sake I'm sticking with "expert evaluations". But I acknowledge different evaluations kind of "move the hoop". Again I think thats why PHPs challenge is fair...he's basically asking you where you differ with the experts, and presumably, why.

[Mothman]

In which case, I think its fair of PHP to ask who you would have rather selected at any given pick in order to increase the draft grade from your perspective.

It would be equally fair for me to ask that he (or you, whoever) justify why the picks the Vikings made were "good shots" or were the right choices but I'm not interested in deconstructing the discussion to that degree so suffice to say, with so many players available, in any given round there were always legitimate alternatives to the players actually chosen (and I'm not saying the Vikings made all wrong choices anyway!). We could also debate about whether trading down and acquiring more picks when they did was ultimately constructive or whether they would have been better off staying put instead of making one or more of those trades. There are many ways to come at this and they're all subjective.

I agree the challenge with the analogy is what constitutes a "good shot", and for arguments sake I'm sticking with "expert evaluations". But I acknowledge different evaluations kind of "move the hoop". Again I think thats why PHPs challenge is fair...he's basically asking you where you differ with the experts, and presumably, why.

Which experts and regarding which players? It's not as if they're all in agreement, on the players or the grades.

I've already explained this to an extent. I see serious boom or bust potential in this draft because I think the Vikes went with quite a few players that will need significant development. There's greater risk in that approach but it can pay off. I disagree with those who say picks like Clemmings and Hunter were great values where they were chosen because the Vikes got a first, second or third round value in the 4th (Clemmings) or a second round value in the third (Hunter). I'm not buying those values. Clemmings looks like a 4th round player to me and Hunter's one of those players who looks the part (which always gets the draftniks into a froth) but doesn't play like it. I've already said that I have no problem with the Vikes choosing Kendricks or Waynes but I've expressed my concerns about Kendricks' size and my personal preference for A. J. Cann in that round. Pruitt's another a developmental prospect. Thompson, DuBose, Diggs...? They're all typical mid-to-late round picks in my opinion (in other words, average mid-to-late round picks). What's exceptional about them compared to other players chosen in the same areas of this draft?

On top of all that, I still think that even with a defensive-minded coach, and some needs on defense, once a team commits to a young QB as their starter and "QB of the future", the top priority should be to build around him, to protect him and provide him with great weapons. Going defense in rounds 1-3 was a legitimate choice and I hope it pays off in a big way but personally, I didn't consider it the wisest course of action.

[Pondering Her Percy]

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.

I understand that. But if you like Waynes and I imagine you like Kendricks....what don't you like that warrants a "C"?? If you're saying we nailed our first two picks what don't you like? Hunter?? The 1st-2nd round talent we got in the 4th in Clemmings?? The playmaking WR we got in the 5th thats been impressing all rookie camp??

If you say, If we were just going off of Waynes you'd give it a higher grade, I would imagine the grade would have been even higher if we were looking at rounds 1 and 2. So just by looking at the first 2 picks, I have a feeling your grade would be anywhere from A to B+. That leaves Hunter, Clemmings, Diggs, Pruitt, Thompson and a few long shots for you to judge. What is it about those 5 picks that effects your round 1 and 2 grade SO much that it brings it to a C??

This is the exact reason why I don't see it anywhere close to a C.

Hunter is definitely a project but is a great run defender which is something we desperately need. That pick also gives us a lot of flexibility with Robison on the outs and Crichton awaiting in the wings as well. In turn we have a lot of depth at that position.

Clemmings has a lot of talent and is extremely athletic. I can just about guarantee Sugarman did his due diligence to make sure he was healthy and could possibly play at a high level still otherwise we wouldn't have bothered drafting him. He also provides much needed depth along the line and gives us a possible starter at LG, if not LT if Kalil flops.

Diggs has been the most impressive rookie at camp. He has great speed and route running skills which is also something we need and it provides depth at the WR position. This could easily be the deepest our WR corps has been on a long time. Not necessarily anyone of the Calvin Johnsom type but just quality WRs.

Pruitt now gives us insurance behind an injury prone Rudolph. Granted he played at a small school but is a stud athlete with great hands and separation skills. He led all of college football in catches, yards and TDs. Rumor has it Norv put the hammer down on making this pick and I think he has a pretty good judgement of TEs.

Thompson is a poor mans Phil Loadholt with more athleticism. He has experience all over the offensive line which provides versatility at multiple spots.

Granted, they all have their flaws but who doesn't. From what I saw out of these 5 guys especially, we drafted a lot of potential starters down the road or even sooner than we think and provided quality depth at multiple positions

[Mothman]

I understand that. But if you like Waynes and I imagine you like Kendricks....what don't you like that warrants a "C"?? If you're saying we nailed our first two picks what don't you like? Hunter?? The 1st-2nd round talent we got in the 4th in Clemmings?? The playmaking WR we got in the 5th thats been impressing all rookie camp??

It's not a question of disliking those players. That seems to be an assumption based on the grade but the grade is for the Vikings overall draft and it's obvious, reading this thread, that everybody grades differently. Personally, I assume:

A = Excellent
B = Above Average
C = Average
D = Below Average
E = Poor

I gave the Vikes a C+ because nothing about their draft strikes me as much above average for the draft class of an NFL team. That doesn't mean I don't like it or think it's bad.

To a substantial degree, the grades we give these picks and drafts depend on what we feel merits a particular grade in the first place. For example, is standing pat and drafting a good player with pick #14 automatically worthy of an A when a team should be expected to draft in that situation?

If you say, If we were just going off of Waynes you'd give it a higher grade, I would imagine the grade would have been even higher if we were looking at rounds 1 and 2. So just by looking at the first 2 picks, I have a feeling your grade would be anywhere from A to B+. That leaves Hunter, Clemmings, Diggs, Pruitt, Thompson and a few long shots for you to judge. What is it about those 5 picks that effects your round 1 and 2 grade SO much that it brings it to a C??

This is the exact reason why I don't see it anywhere close to a C.

Please don't make assumptions and provide grades for me. I wouldn't grade their picks in the first two rounds as high as you suggested. I'd probably give them a B or B- for those two selections and again, that's not a knock on Waynes or Kendricks (or on Spielman, for that matter). I just don't see anything exceptional about those choices given where they were made. That's the level of player I expect a team picking 14th overall to get in rounds 1 and 2. Neither strikes me as a superb value for the spot in which they were chosen. Neither strikes me as a college superstar likely to become an NFL superstar. They're good, solid choices.

Hunter is definitely a project but is a great run defender which is something we desperately need. That pick also gives us a lot of flexibility with Robison on the outs and Crichton awaiting in the wings as well. In turn we have a lot of depth at that position.

Clemmings has a lot of talent and is extremely athletic. I can just about guarantee Sugarman did his due diligence to make sure he was healthy and could possibly play at a high level still otherwise we wouldn't have bothered drafting him. He also provides much needed depth along the line and gives us a possible starter at LG, if not LT if Kalil flops.

Diggs has been the most impressive rookie at camp. He has great speed and route running skills which is also something we need and it provides depth at the WR position. This could easily be the deepest our WR corps has been on a long time. Not necessarily anyone of the Calvin Johnsom type but just quality WRs.

Pruitt now gives us insurance behind an injury prone Rudolph. Granted he played at a small school but is a stud athlete with great hands and separation skills. He led all of college football in catches, yards and TDs. Rumor has it Norv put the hammer down on making this pick and I think he has a pretty good judgement of TEs.

Thompson is a poor mans Phil Loadholt with more athleticism. He has experience all over the offensive line which provides versatility at multiple spots.

Granted, they all have their flaws but who doesn't. From what I saw out of these 5 guys especially, we drafted a lot of potential starters down the road or even sooner than we think and provided quality depth at multiple positions

I don't disagree with most of that but how is any of it above the average one should expect from an NFL team's draft class? Several of those players look like real projects to me. I have a hard time giving choices like that an above average grade when they could so easily go either way. Most of the others are, like Waynes and Kendricks, the caliber of player I'd expect a team to draft when they were picked. They're not bad choices but nothing about most of them or their selection stands out to me as above average drafting. Sorry...

I think some of these players will likely go on to make solid contributions, a few may not even make the team and hopefully, the Vikes found at least two future starters. Right now, it looks like an average draft to me but as always with the draft, time will tell.

[mondry]

This is kind of how I view the draft...



The shots right at the hoop and the slam dunks are good shots...even when they turn out to be a red X.

Depending on the player taking them (your scouts, your GM, team needs), the shots out at the 3 point line can be good shots. I think we attempted several of those this draft. Again, even if its a red X, an open 3 from a guy who can hit that shot is a good shot...unless, maybe, your in transition and give up a wide open layup for the 3. (So yes, I would have taken Deandre Hopkins over Cordarelle Patterson)

You can have a game where all your good shots turn out to be red Xs and maybe you hit a few wild turnarounds as the clocks running down (like that one green dot on the chart that is behind the backboard). But over time the more good shots you take, the more you win.

In other words its better to judge by shot location than by whether its a green dot or a red x.

I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else.

As a wolves fan and a Thunder fan, I love the basketball examples you come up with haha.

For me, Waynes and Kendricks were pretty much easy shots in the paint from your all star center who makes the basket and gets fouled for an AND1 opportunity, meaning they're most likely good starters with the potential to be probowlers.

Hunter is like a 3 point shot from your top guy beyond the arc, those go in about 38-40% of the time and are the quickest way towards 3 points (a stud probowler)

Diggs and Pruitt are like an open 12 footer from a good shooter, still a pretty good shot to get 2 points but it's not a dunk or a 3 pointer

Clemmings is a contested 3 pointer but if it goes in it's a walk off game winner picked in the 4th round.

The rest look like long 2's (not a great shot in basketball) but they're wide open looks with a decent chance to go in still.

Given where these guys were drafted, I'd say all of them were pretty good shots to me with a good balance of reward to the risk, that's why I give it an A. Of course we can't know for sure before seeing any of these guys play but that's why I'm not judging the players, I'm judging the shots by spielman and I don't see any contested long 2's early in the shot clock (the worst shot in basketball) so I'm happy with it.

[DK Sweets]

I'm going to piggyback Jim's last post a bit, because he uses the same grading scale that I do.

It's not that I hate any selection - quite the opposite, in fact. I'm not a fan of the Hunter pick, but I see why it could be a good pick down the road. I'm not as sold on the Waynes pick, and I think there were a few other corners that could easily be as good as him, but I'm tentatively optimistic that he can be a great fit in our defense (although I do take a bit of exception to the notion that he's a "perfect fit" for our defense - I saw on many reports that he struggled with slants but excelled in press and deep zone. He would be a perfect fit in Seattle's defense, but in our defense he still has some things to prove).

Basically, I give this draft a C+ as Jim did because I don't have supreme confidence in any one player. I've felt for the past three years the Vikings deserved B+ at worst (and it's not just because of the extra first rounders, I was pretty high on 2011 when we got Ponder/Rudolph early and circled around and got Fusco late...unfortunately, depending on Rudolph's health, only 1 of those picks turned out well), but in this year's draft I feel like we had nothing spectacular and nothing head-scratching. It was just a league average draft in my opinion. Now I'm ready to see how it works out.

I hope that clarifies my position a bit.

[losperros]

I don't disagree with most of that but how is any of it above the average one should expect from an NFL team's draft class? Several of those players look like real projects to me. I have a hard time giving choices like that an above average grade when they could so easily go either way. Most of the others are, like Waynes and Kendricks, the caliber of player I'd expect a team to draft when they were picked. They're not bad choices but nothing about most of them or their selection stands out to me as above average drafting. Sorry...

Nothing to be sorry about, Jim. Call it the way you see it. That's the fun part of being a fan. We know it all!

Do keep in mind that most every draft pick could go either way. The entire thing is a crap shoot, regardless what the experts (gasp!) say. Maybe you wanted the Vikings to make other picks or go in another direction and that's what made you feel this was just an average draft. There weren't any real Spielman theatrics this time around, so that might make things seem a bit average as well.

It's not that I hate any selection - quite the opposite, in fact. I'm not a fan of the Hunter pick, but I see why it could be a good pick down the road. I'm not as sold on the Waynes pick, and I think there were a few other corners that could easily be as good as him, but I'm tentatively optimistic that he can be a great fit in our defense (although I do take a bit of exception to the notion that he's a "perfect fit" for our defense - I saw on many reports that he struggled with slants but excelled in press and deep zone. He would be a perfect fit in Seattle's defense, but in our defense he still has some things to prove).

I'm mystified as to why some people don't like "project" players. Zimmer seems genuinely excited about developing young guys like Hunter. As I've said before, NFL coaches are supposed to develop and improve players. That's their job. They get paid big bucks to do it. And Zimmer is good at it. I guess I just can't get concerned about trusting Zimmer's instincts on the picks, given that he seems to know what he's doing when judging talent. Just my take on it.

[mosscarter]

i'll go with our head coach's track record thus far. if he wanted waynes; then until i see otherwise i like the pick. this is his first draft and these are his players now. he basically took a last place defense from two years ago to a middle of the pack defense in one year, and it wasn't with any of his players. i think we will have a top 10 defense and go 9-7 or maybe 10-6 and make the playoffs. in two years we will be real contenders.

[The Breeze]

I'm mystified as to why some people don't like "project" players. Zimmer seems genuinely excited about developing young guys like Hunter. As I've said before, NFL coaches are supposed to develop and improve players. That's their job. They get paid big bucks to do it. And Zimmer is good at it. I guess I just can't get concerned about trusting Zimmer's instincts on the picks, given that he seems to know what he's doing when judging talent. Just my take on it.

I think 'project' players covers a wide variety and generally I really agree with your take. There are some things to consider though....

Need, for example.

You don't want a guy who is a project type for a position where you need a starter, IMO.

A couple of examples are CP and McKinnon.

If it was known that AD would miss the season and possibly be traded, I really doubt that they draft a guy, KcKinnon, in the 3rd who has never fully played the position. They could afford to draft a kid with his abilities and develop him because they had AD as the guy at RB.

I'm not so sure the case with Patterson was the same at all. He's in his 3rd year as a pro and he's still struggling to learn the basic responsibilities of his position.(getting off the line and how to run routes) He is a completely different degree of project and proving not to be a guy who can be relied upon to start. NFL coaches should not be required to flat out teach a guy the position he played multiple seasons at in college...unless they already have a stable of capable people manning the position in question. I know there is probably a long list of guys drafted at WR who fail to meet those same qualities....but not many of them are 1 rd picks.

Joe Webb is another example. I think it's probably not a good idea to have a 'project guy' as the number two QB.

But if you have a good staff and the guy in question isn't required right away...I'm all for taking a shot on some of these freaky athlete types that show a capacity to be coached.