Moderator: Moderators
I snuck the "+" in there just to be positive.John_Viveiros wrote:Same for me. I went with the straight C, because there's just no way to know.
Indeed. Let's hope it happens.I do like the boom or bust picks, assuming that we have someone we think is "replacement level" at our current positions. I think we have that everywhere but left guard and MLB. We need some guys to come in and be better than average at some important positions.
Then that makes every draft that any team has always a C. The grades are speculative and have to be because there is no way to guarantee results from a draft, even from the top rated 10 players.Mothman wrote: I snuck the "+" in there just to be positive.
Well, it would make them a C the day afterward anyway.losperros wrote:Then that makes every draft that any team has always a C.
You're right, Craig, the grades are speculative and I said I gave them a C+"mainly because I think it's too early to draw any conclusions". However, as the "mainly" implies, that wasn't my only reason. I just don't have a good feel for how the Vikes did in this draft. As I said, it has a "boom or bust' feel to me and I'm uneasy about it because I truly see that "boom or bust" potential in it. I could see this ending up as a draft that doesn't yield more than one good long-term starter for the team or a draft that yields several and some good depth to boot. Consequently, I'm giving it an average grade because it looks like it could go either way.The grades are speculative and have to be because there is no way to guarantee results from a draft, even from the top rated 10 players.
I've seen a few of them play and I was pretty impressed by Waynes in particular. I suspect he'll do very well in Zimmer's defense. However, I didn't feel they did a great job of addressing needs. They addressed a couple (CB and MLB) but I saw guard as their biggest need by far and I don't know that they added an o-linemen that could start for them right away or any that could be a good starting OG any time soon.Anyway, I'll go against the flow and admit I gave the draft an A-. I really like the picks, particularly the first three (Waynes, Hendricks, and Hunter). I've seen these guys play football, which is something that maybe most of us should do before judging them. They all looked good on the field and that's all that matters at this point. I guess I don't see what more we can say about them as players. Also the grade should signify whether the team addressed its needs. I think the Vikings did that,. But then, I wanted them to draft for the D and the OL, so maybe I'm biased.
John, I forget which network I was watching when they chose Dubose (I think was NFLN) but when the pick was made, he was referred to as a defensive tackle so I'm guessing that's how he's being projected by some teams as well.John_Viveiros wrote:DE B.J. Dubose (6)
+ Strong
- Not particularly productive in college, not great against either the run of the pass [I don't like this one at all. He might project to DT with more weight.]
IN OUR VIEW: A versatile defender, Dubose didn't become a full-time starter until his senior season after spending much of his first four seasons in Charlie Strong's doghouse. He spent time inside and outside on the Cardinals' defensive line, playing everywhere from the nose to the three-technique and outside rushing off the edge. Dubose is tough-minded and enjoys being the aggressor, but also turned up the discipline dial as a senior, showing improved run awareness and a motor that doesn't quit.
A mid-round prospect, he has the skill-set to be a better pro than college player if his motivation continues ascending north, fitting best as a two-gapping five-technique in a 3-4 scheme or left defensive end in a 4-3 front, moving inside on passing downs.
He did try to move up in the 3rd but wasn't able to find a trade partner. I think what we had was a pretty meaty late 1st into 2nd round. What I mean by that is not a lot of separation and/or not a lot of agreement on individual value, which is why we didn't see trades early and a lot of teams holding pat later.John_Viveiros wrote:Furthermore, Trader Rick wasn't too active this year. In prior years, he moved up to grab players he liked - Teddy, Harrison Smith, Patterson - and showed he could make some pretty good selections. This year, he just waited to see who was available, as if it really didn't matter, and no one on the board was really that much better than the next available guy. In essence, I'm not that excited about the class because it's clear that the Vikings really didn't see anyone that they felt they needed to go out of their way to get. It may be that Rick had 2nd round grades on a dozen guys available in the third round, and figured one would drop, but again that tells me that no one was standing out.
Good. That's what made sense even when looking at NFL.com's bad review of him. What do you do with a DE that's big and strong, but can't get to the QB? Have him hold the point against the run.Mothman wrote:John, I forget which network I was watching when they chose Dubose (I think was NFLN) but when the pick was made, he was referred to as a defensive tackle so I'm guessing that's how he's being projected by some teams as well.
I didn't. Thanks. That's an interesting prognosis: "skill-set to be a better pro than college player". People have done it before. I can't think of any at the moment on the defensive line - maybe Pat Williams? Of course, it happens all the time at QB, where athletic ability is almost inversely (kidding!) correlated with success.I don't know if you saw this draft profile (by Dane Brugler) on him but it seems a little more encouraging than the one at NFL.com:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/play ... /bj-dubose
Here's part of it:
The selections of Crichton and Dubose, along with the projection of Hunter to RDE really illustrates to me how miscast Robison is at LDE. They seem to be looking for a player closer to a 3-4 DE skill set for that LDE spot. Stand up against the run, collapse the pocket, disengage to make a play. Its just not Robison's game at all. Its not a glamorous role. Almost closer to a DT than a pass rushing DE. I wish Robison had the athletic ability to stand up and drop into space a little, but when they tried that a little last preseason it was clearly not going to be an option. He could be a surprise cut this year if the young guys pan out.John_Viveiros wrote: Good. That's what made sense even when looking at NFL.com's bad review of him. What do you do with a DE that's big and strong, but can't get to the QB? Have him hold the point against the run.
This is a better way of grading drafts than usual. It doesn't make sense to grade based on outcome 3 years down the road. That's where you grade your scouting department. but internally the draft has to be graded based on how they value the picks. From a fans perspective, a consensus ranking like this is the best way to grade a GM's selections.John_Viveiros wrote:An interesting way to grade the draft, from Vikings Territory:
http://vikingsterritory.com/2015/analys ... eams-draft
Arif put together a consensus listing of the draft rankings, and compared the ranking of the picks to the consensus for all the teams and picks. If you are always picking guys higher than the consensus, you clearly overvalue them (perhaps correctly, of course). If you pick BPA, and the ranking is accurate, you'll usually grab someone who is ranked higher than your draft spot, getting good value. He makes a good case for Rick Spielman, I have to say.
To me, that would be a very surprising cut since Crichton barely saw the field last year (did he play at all? I forget) and Dubose and Hunter both look like project players.fiestavike wrote: The selections of Crichton and Dubose, along with the projection of Hunter to RDE really illustrates to me how miscast Robison is at LDE. They seem to be looking for a player closer to a 3-4 DE skill set for that LDE spot. Stand up against the run, collapse the pocket, disengage to make a play. Its just not Robison's game at all. Its not a glamorous role. Almost closer to a DT than a pass rushing DE. I wish Robison had the athletic ability to stand up and drop into space a little, but when they tried that a little last preseason it was clearly not going to be an option. He could be a surprise cut this year if the young guys pan out.
I did qualify it with "If the young guys pan out",Mothman wrote: To me, that would be a very surprising cut since Crichton barely saw the field last year (did he play at all? I forget) and Dubose and Hunter both look like project players.
Yeah, I don't know if they'd cut him but I could see him landing in a heavy rotation where he's only seeing say 40-50% of the snaps. A lot of people question the sack totals of our draft picks but that's just not what Zimmer asks for so I think you hit that part of the scheme right on. I think Robison is still a good player but I do think one of these guys could actually de-throne him without necessarily having "out played" him if that makes sense.fiestavike wrote: The selections of Crichton and Dubose, along with the projection of Hunter to RDE really illustrates to me how miscast Robison is at LDE. They seem to be looking for a player closer to a 3-4 DE skill set for that LDE spot. Stand up against the run, collapse the pocket, disengage to make a play. Its just not Robison's game at all. Its not a glamorous role. Almost closer to a DT than a pass rushing DE. I wish Robison had the athletic ability to stand up and drop into space a little, but when they tried that a little last preseason it was clearly not going to be an option. He could be a surprise cut this year if the young guys pan out.
I know. Maybe I should have phrased my reply to say "They'd have to really pan out" rather than 'that would be a very surprising cut" since i was basically expressing skepticism that any of those d-lineman will pan out so well that the Vikes would cut Robison prior to this season.fiestavike wrote:I did qualify it with "If the young guys pan out",
They're both interesting situations, to be sure. I have my on Allen's situation too.But what really drives the idea for me is just how far Robison is from what it APPEARS to me they want in a LDE. I will likewise be very interested to see what happens with Jared Allen in Chicago, who I think is about to find himself in a similar situation.
