Grading The Vikings 2015 Draft

[fiestavike]

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.

Yes, its not always about best player or best athlete, but best fit in the scheme. I love Robison and thought he was consistently undervalued while player in a Cover 2 scheme, but he is essentially not playing the same position anymore. The role that he excelled in is not part of this scheme.

[mondry]

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.

Yeah I love it, that's why I gave spielman and co an A- earlier in this thread. You look at where the picks being made and the value compared to the rest of the board, obviously no one knows how any of these guys will pan out as pro's so I'm not even trying to grade potential. For me it's about PERCEIVED VALUE compared to where the pick is made. For example, Trey Waynes might be the best player in this entire draft, future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah, to me that doesn't matter. What matters is did we get good value with Waynes at 11? Say you take Waynes at #3 that's not good perceived value, even though according to the future I just laid out he's a hall of famer and could even go #1 over all. On the flip side if you got Waynes at #32 like we got Bridgewater, then that is insane perceived value and I call that a great use of the pick. (thus a higher draft grade)

It's more like "did Spielman play the game better than the other GM's?"

[fiestavike]

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.

That's fair. I'm skeptical about that too.

They're both interesting situations, to be sure. I have my on Allen's situation too.

I think the Vikes might have very system-oriented coaches now, coaches who are more interested in finding players who fit their schemes than in adapting the latter to the talent available. That's not inherently good or bad but it's probably bad news for a player like Robison, who, I agree, will likely be replaced as soon as they find someone who can actually handle the LDE job in the scheme better.

[/quote]

I agree. I think that is a good observation about this staff. Longterm I think its a better approach than adapting the scheme to fit the player, but I'm sure there is an appropriate balance to be found in between finding players to fit the scheme and adjusting the scheme to fit the player.

[mondry]

I agree. I think that is a good observation about this staff. Longterm I think its a better approach than adapting the scheme to fit the player, but I'm sure there is an appropriate balance to be found in between finding players to fit the scheme and adjusting the scheme to fit the player.

That goes back to something I was saying earlier about how happy I am to have a GM and coaches working together to find the best players for their scheme. Obviously that limits your player pool in some ways but it also means guys who aren't super valued might be decent players in your specific system. I think it's the best approach for a team IF your GM and coaches know exactly the kind of player they need and the GM makes an effort to get you those players (rather than just making a draft pick that's more likely to "pan out" but isn't a good fit for your system)

[fiestavike]

Yeah I love it, that's why I gave spielman and co an A- earlier in this thread. You look at where the picks being made and the value compared to the rest of the board, obviously no one knows how any of these guys will pan out as pro's so I'm not even trying to grade potential. For me it's about PERCEIVED VALUE compared to where the pick is made. For example, Trey Waynes might be the best player in this entire draft, future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah, to me that doesn't matter. What matters is did we get good value with Waynes at 11? Say you take Waynes at #3 that's not good perceived value, even though according to the future I just laid out he's a hall of famer and could even go #1 over all. On the flip side if you got Waynes at #32 like we got Bridgewater, then that is insane perceived value and I call that a great use of the pick. (thus a higher draft grade)

It's more like "did Spielman play the game better than the other GM's?"

Yes, to reuse an analogy I put forward earlier, Its like a poker hand, and you want to get your money in on the hand with the best value. If you judge your bet against how the hand ends you will make a bad evaluation of your bet. It has to be based on the value, not the outcome. And similarly, in basketball you can't judge the shot by whether or not it goes in (over time), but whether or not it is a high percentage shot. So for example in the spurs series, I was shouting at the TV every time Tony Parker would pull up and take a jump shot. He made a few of them, but make or miss it was a bad shot because its not a shot he will make with any frequency at this stage of his career.

[PurpleKoolaid]

This is a draft where you really hope Spielman knows what he is doing. Im still shocked he couldnt get Cann, I think he wanted to make sure he got his 10 picks again, more then anything.

I think the Zimmer picks, are promising. I still dont agree with the logic of the Waynes pick, but if he becomes a star, i will be estatic. I think he ends up just being a CB slightly better then Robinson or Captain. I guess Zimmer couldnt work his magic on them. But to me, it looks like we found our mike in Kendricks. He and Barr should make a huge impact, as both have the upside to make big plays.

We still didnt address one of the most glaring needs we have, a LG. This has gone on long enough, trying to fit late round picks to plug this hole. It hasnt worked so far, and affects our 2 biggest stars on offense, Teddy and AD.

[808vikingsfan]

Mods, please delete needed.

Found this on another site

Mel Kiper's 2015 NFL Draft Grades

[Mothman]

Yeah I love it, that's why I gave spielman and co an A- earlier in this thread. You look at where the picks being made and the value compared to the rest of the board, obviously no one knows how any of these guys will pan out as pro's so I'm not even trying to grade potential. For me it's about PERCEIVED VALUE compared to where the pick is made. For example, Trey Waynes might be the best player in this entire draft, future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah, to me that doesn't matter. What matters is did we get good value with Waynes at 11? Say you take Waynes at #3 that's not good perceived value, even though according to the future I just laid out he's a hall of famer and could even go #1 over all. On the flip side if you got Waynes at #32 like we got Bridgewater, then that is insane perceived value and I call that a great use of the pick. (thus a higher draft grade)

It's more like "did Spielman play the game better than the other GM's?"

That's exactly how I hate looking at the draft. It's one of the things I find interesting about it though: different fans have a very different take on what it is and how it should be handled. I don't see it as a game (in the sense you referred to above) and I don't care much about perceived value because to me, the goal isn't to "win" by getting the best perceived value at each spot. It's to build a team, which has far more to do with identifying parts that will fit together well to form an effective whole than making sure the player you get at pick #17 is a good value at pick #17. For me, getting a player who might fit the team well enough to be a "future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah: is WAY more important than making sure he was a good perceived value at #11. If you get that player, he's a good value at any pick because he's a "future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah".

To put it another way: the draft is simply a means to an end. It isn't a competition to see who gets the best value and "wins" the draft. It's a the primary method used to build the best team and win the real competition: football games.

[Mothman]

That goes back to something I was saying earlier about how happy I am to have a GM and coaches working together to find the best players for their scheme. Obviously that limits your player pool in some ways but it also means guys who aren't super valued might be decent players in your specific system. I think it's the best approach for a team IF your GM and coaches know exactly the kind of player they need and the GM makes an effort to get you those players (rather than just making a draft pick that's more likely to "pan out" but isn't a good fit for your system)

That seems like the opposite of the viewpoint you expressed about getting the best perceived value.

[The Breeze]

I think value is in the eye of the beholder...and saying that makes it impossible to hand out a grade in those terms.
I will say we drafted guys at positions we needed and I like that.

Also, to the point of scheme 's and adjusting it to players: I think it's critical to find guys who fit the base scheme and can play it well. Once that gets established and guys become tenured in the scheme there comes more opportunities to add different kinds of guys and tinker with things.
This,to me, is one of the biggest benefits of having a coaching staff in place for longer than 5-6years.

[Pondering Her Percy]

http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/vide ... fa515c12ed

Cassely gives us an A

[IrishViking]

http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/vide ... fa515c12ed

Cassely gives us an A

I feel like Cassely would be amazing to just sit and listen talk football while you drank a beer.

[808vikingsfan]

Draft grades all in one place

2015 NFL Draft: Minnesota Vikings Draft Grades Roundup

[mondry]

That's exactly how I hate looking at the draft. It's one of the things I find interesting about it though: different fans have a very different take on what it is and how it should be handled. I don't see it as a game (in the sense you referred to above) and I don't care much about perceived value because to me, the goal isn't to "win" by getting the best perceived value at each spot. It's to build a team, which has far more to do with identifying parts that will fit together well to form an effective whole than making sure the player you get at pick #17 is a good value at pick #17. For me, getting a player who might fit the team well enough to be a "future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah: is WAY more important than making sure he was a good perceived value at #11. If you get that player, he's a good value at any pick because he's a "future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah".

To put it another way: the draft is simply a means to an end. It isn't a competition to see who gets the best value and "wins" the draft. It's a the primary method used to build the best team and win the real competition: football games.

Yeah, for me I'm just not sure how else to look at the draft literally 1 day after it's completed and "judge" how we or other teams did. I get what you're saying but personally I do think they kind of go hand and hand because I believe getting the best perceived value often means maximizing the skill / talent of each guy you pick, thus giving you better pieces to build that effective whole you're talking about because it takes a whole lot of skill and talent to be a "future hall of famer, 7 time probowler blah blah blah"

I think the main thing is I just find it fun for like I said, 1 day after the draft. You and I both know 3 years from now we could have a totally different view on how we did and ultimately that is much more important than guessing how we did 1 day after the draft but it's no fun waiting!

That seems like the opposite of the viewpoint you expressed about getting the best perceived value.

I think it goes both ways, Hunter for example fits our scheme really well but he fell to the 3rd round because he isn't a flashy sack specialist which is what most teams are after at defensive end. In this case, the player fitting our scheme (and not fitting most other schemes) benefits us.

[PurpleKoolaid]

So hes a Robison, without the experience.