Vikings Message Board.Com

chicagopurple wrote:BAH...a short CB! In a league dominated by really tall recievers. ANd he went 2 seasons with NO INTs against college QBs....not promising.

OL would have been better.

And he also hasnt allowed a TD in 23 games. So I'm not really worried about the interceptions

I'm listening to the press conferences for Treadwell and Alexander.

One thing stands out--the Vikings have chosen two guys who are extremely competitive and bring a palpable intensity to the field. Zimmer and Spielman seem to place a lot of importance on that quality because of what it does in the locker room and with the personality of the team, and I think that's huge. Determination and fight is too often overlooked--obviously there's no measurement for it at the combine--but they are crucial IMO.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Well part of that is false. Munnerlyn actually played very well in the slot last year. Lets not live on what we saw two years ago

Agreed. The capt played great last year. Besides one play..... on that botched play where the ball was snapped over Russell Wilson's head in the play off game. He shoulda knocked Wilson's head off instead of going for the ball. Cost us the playoff game!

Texas Vike wrote:I'm listening to the press conferences for Treadwell and Alexander.

One thing stands out--the Vikings have chosen two guys who are extremely competitive and bring a palpable intensity to the field. Zimmer and Spielman seem to place a lot of importance on that quality because of what it does in the locker room and with the personality of the team, and I think that's huge. Determination and fight is too often overlooked--obviously there's no measurement for it at the combine--but they are crucial IMO.

I'm really interested to see how these personalities get along on the field and in the locker room. It can be great but it could also be hard. Camp will be a lot of fun.

PFF's Best of Day 2

5. Mackensie Alexander, CB, Minnesota
It might not have been a “need” per se, but Alexander is one injury or one free agent walking away from being thrust into a starting role. When re-grading the draft, talent always trumps need, and Alexander brings a high-level skill set to the table. The Clemson cornerback had maybe the toughest assignment in 2015 of any cornerback in college football. He was frequently asked to shadow the opposing team’s top receiver and was also asked to play some zone coverages on an island with no underneath support. Even under those less-than-ideal conditions, Alexander yielded only 19 receptions on 57 targets in 14 games. Those are ridiculous numbers for a late second-round selection.

http://buff.ly/1NaUh6r

dead_poet wrote:PFF's Best of Day 2
http://buff.ly/1NaUh6r

Nuff said! SKOL

Like this pick more and more....

dead_poet wrote: I'm really interested to see how these personalities get along on the field and in the locker room. It can be great but it could also be hard. Camp will be a lot of fun.

No doubt. Too much fire, or fire that isn't properly channeled, can lead to problems too. I'm imagining Alexander lining up against Treadwell in camp... that's an explosion waiting to happen!

You can never have too many corners. I think this reflects more on him being the bpa than any doubt in Waynes.

Texas Vike wrote: No doubt. Too much fire, or fire that isn't properly channeled, can lead to problems too. I'm imagining Alexander lining up against Treadwell in camp... that's an explosion waiting to happen!

Diggs and Alexander will have a fight in camp. Diggs is a maniac. He'll be a problem to manage once his production is up...but he's a hell of a talent.

kurtkeoki wrote: This draft was loaded with defensive talent. It was one of the best in recent memory for defensive depth. Sure, our D is better than our O now, but the best way to build a roster for 3, 4 years down the road is to take the best player, even if they aren't filling the biggest need. Your needs today probably won't match up with your needs tomorrow.

That's true, team needs change and sometimes they can be difficult to foresee but as we've discussed here on the board many times, the idea that a particular player is the "best player" on the board is pretty subjective. For example, what made Alexander the best player as opposed to, say, offensive lineman Cody Whitehair, who was selected by the Bears two picks later?

Heck, Whitehair didn't allow a TD in his last 23 games either.

Mothman wrote:
That's true, team needs change and sometimes they can be difficult to foresee but as we've discussed here on the board many times, the idea that a particular player is the "best player" on the board is pretty subjective. For example, what made Alexander the best player as opposed to, say, offensive lineman Cody Whitehair, who was selected by the Bears two picks later?

Heck, Whitehair didn't allow a TD in his last 23 games either.

It is subjective, but you got to go with the guy your board tells you is the best at that point, you have scouting departments that analyse a players every facet for a reason, you have to trust their judgement because they were hired to find the best available football players.

If it was as simple as 'Its subjective' you would get teams ignoring conventional wisdom and grabbing any old scrub regardless of where their skills have them being projected. Sure, there is no guarantee that Alaxander was the best available player at the time, but it seemed your brass seemed to think so, and they are the ones getting paid to bring a Lombardi back to Minny, so I think it is worth it to maybe just drink a little of the koolaid and relax. (Dont take me to litteral, I know your not getting all bent out of shape)

Just two cents from and an outsider.

Jordysghost wrote:it is subjective, but you got to go with the guy your board tells you is the best at that point, you have scouting departments that analyse a players every facet for a reason, you have to trust their judgement because they were hired to find the best available football players.

... or the coach just trumps all that, pounds the table and says, I know we have Player X marked two spots higher but damn it, I want player Y!

Honestly, I get what you're saying. It's said so often every offseason we should just make a BPA emoticon to save everybody time. However, at this point, I think it's become overused rhetoric, used to justify any pick fans like and/or want to defend, especially after the first round.

If it was as simple as 'Its subjective' you would get teams ignoring conventional wisdom and grabbing any old scrub regardless of where their skills have them being projected.

No you wouldn't. They still have a board. They still do analysis so they're not going to just grab "any scrub" regardless of talent or skill. However, the tired idea that at any given spot, there is a single best player available is absurd and since we don't have access to the actual boards teams assemble, we don't know how strictly they adhere to their particular rankings either. Most of the time, it's probably pretty close but I think it's naive to believe they never deviate from them, especially because teams clearly make "need" picks all the time. It's funny how often the BPA happens to be a guy who fills that gaping hole on the roster created when Player Z left earlier in the offseason, isn't it?

I imagine at most spots in the draft, there's at least a handful of players available that are closely ranked on a team's board and there's likely some discussion about which of that handful of players should be selected.

Sure, there is no guarantee that Alaxander was the best available player at the time, but it seemed your brass seemed to think so, and they are the ones getting paid to bring a Lombardi back to Minny, so I think it is worth it to maybe just drink a little of the koolaid and relax.

I'm relaxed.

Oh, and drink your own Kool-Aid, Packer Boy!

Mothman wrote: ... or the coach just trumps all that, pounds the table and says, I know we have Player X marked two spots higher but damn it, I want player Y!

Honestly, I get what you're saying. It's said so often every offseason we should just make a BPA emoticon to save everybody time. However, at this point, I think it's become overused rhetoric, used to justify any pick fans like and/or want to defend, especially after the first round.
No you wouldn't. They still have a board. They still do analysis so they're not going to just grab "any scrub" regardless of talent or skill. However, the tired idea that at any given spot, there is a single best player available is absurd and since we don't have access to the actual boards teams assemble, we don't know how strictly they adhere to their particular rankings either. Most of the time, it's probably pretty close but I think it's naive to believe they never deviate from them, especially because teams clearly make "need" picks all the time. It's funny how often the BPA happens to be a guy who fills that gaping hole on the roster created when Player Z left earlier in the offseason, isn't it?

I imagine at most spots in the draft, there's at least a handful of players available that are closely ranked on a team's board and there's likely some discussion about which of that handful of players should be selected.
I'm relaxed.

Oh, and drink your own Kool-Aid, Packer Boy!

Your right, BPA is often used as a buzz word around draft time to justify picks, I hundred percent agree, but to think it isnt a validated draft philosphy would be fallacious, every teamfits somewhere on the scale of drafting what their board and brass says is the bpa vs drafting in accordance to team needs, almost never are the two extremes reached, but its about marryng the two.

Imo, Drafting for need is obviously something every team does to an extent, but time and time again has that shown to be a destructive thinking, that is how the Jets end up with Kyle Brady, that is how the Packers ended up with Tony Mandarich (Instead of Sanders, Thomas, and the other Sanders) and that is how Aaron Rodgers made it to the 24th pick in the draft, it all depends on your draft board, I agree if you have a guy slightly ahead of a guy at a glaring need, you take the need, but needs fluxuate and you have to get good players when you can, where you can.

If player X is graded out significantly higher then player Y, even if player Y fills the need, you have to go with player X, you never know what you are going to need down the road, you take good players where when you find good players. You go through the process and study these guys for a reason, and it isnt to find out what position he plays.

Personally if I coach told me "We took this guy even though we think that guy is a better player." I'd be like, wtf?

dead_poet wrote:PFF's Best of Day 2
http://buff.ly/1NaUh6r

WOW!!!

Pondering Her Percy wrote: WOW!!!

I know how you feel, what a draft for the Vikes!