Who did the Vikings want at 8?

[VikingPaul73]

I find Rick's trade downs in past years to collect 7th rounders maddening, particularly last year when everyone knew there would be less than the usual time in camp, and therefore less learning by players and evaluation by the coaching staff. And not surprisingly not a single one of all of those 6th and 7th rounders made the active roster (who knows maybe 1 or 2 will this year after a year on the PS). This is where I stand and I've commented on this frequently over the past several years.

That said, I find the criticism of the 1st rd trade back this year mind boggling. If we had stood firm at 14 and drafted Darrisaw, it would have been a solid pick, decent value at a position of need. I think most "experts" would have agreed with that, and few if any would have criticized the pick. But to trade back, still get Darrisaw AND add Mond and Davis???? That was a home run by Rick, IMHO.

Look, we won't know for some time how any of these picks will work out. Maybe they will all be busts.....maybe Mond will be the next Brady and lead us to multiple Lombardis. Who knows
But right here and now....is there anyone on this board (or in the world for that matter! ) that would trade Darrisaw, Mond and Davis for ANYONE available at 14????

[Pondering Her Percy]

S- Will Harris- 50.5
OG- Nate Davis- 69.7
CB- Justin Layne- 48.3
DT- Khalen Saunders- 64.3
DE- Jaylon Ferguson- 68.6
TE- Kahale Warring- 51.6
RB- Damien Harris- 90.3
LB- Cody Barton- 54.3
LB- Boddy Okereke- 49.6
OG- Connor McGovern- 62.2
OT- Trey Pipkins- 54.8
OT- Chuma Edoga- 61.3
WR- Miles Boykin- 62.5
CB- Jamel Dean- 76.6
DE- Oshane Ximines- 63.4
TE- Dawson Knox- 61.4
OT- Bobby Evans- 60.0
LB- Quincy Williams- 51.1
S- Mike Edwards- 77.0
QB- Will Grier- DNP
OT- Yodny Cajuste- DNP

Alexander Mattisons PFF grade..... 80.6

Damien Harris's pff grade is 90.3 and is arguably the much better back.
Nate Davis fills a huge need and would have made the team significantly better last year starting over Dozier. I can't say for sure Mattison makes all that much of a difference over Boone if he was the #2 back.
Jamel Dean was a pretty good CB for TB in their SB run.

I would take those 3 over Mattison and whatever garbage the Vikings drafted with the picks they traded down for in a heartbeat, but who is to say the Vikings would have drafted one of those guys and not Mattison anyway if they had stood pat?

So opportunities to draft better if they had kept the pick, but not necessarily better results if they had.

I would say Damien Harris is the better back too but regardless, Cook is our starter and that doesnt make our team any better really. If anything it's a slight upgrade at backup RB.

Sure Nate Davis is better than Dozier, but who isnt. That helps the OL by drafting him but not sure it makes the team "significantly better". Davis still struggled in pass pro which was our biggest problem. He was an excellent run blocker but it makes me wonder with some of these guys blocking for Derrick Henry and Dalvin Cook. Is player A on the OL really that good of a run blocker or are Derrick Henry and Dalvin Cook just that good? Either way, Davis was an improvement over Dozier but Davis doesnt put this team in the playoffs. And in the end, they draft Cleveland and Wyatt Davis the last two years. So would having Davis instead of one of those guys really lead us to a SB? No. They really just negate each other in the end.

Dean was solid for TB. But again, does Dean bring us a SB? Probably not. We follow it up with drafting Gladney (unfortunate situation), Dantzler and Hand. To then signing Peterson and Breeland. He would've helped out last year but I still dont see them in the playoffs because of Jamel Dean.

Point is, CharVike claims these moves and trade downs were costing us Super Bowls. That is false.

And in the end, those trades ended up landing us Alexander Mattison, Cam Smith, Marcus Epps, Oli Udoh, Kris Boyd and Dillon Mitchell. Again most were flyers, some who became depth pieces, others who didnt make the team. But when you move back 21 spots and lose very little, if anything at all, but receive all these extra flyers, who in the right mind wouldnt take that chance? You're getting free draft picks and we all know the draft is a crap shoot.

For example, Diggs. Yes I know he was one of the "only players that panned out". But that's exactly the point. 95% of players from round 5 and beyond dont pan out. They are usually depth pieces at best. But once in a while you're going to strike gold. And if in that time, you didnt pass up on much, still get a solid player and a bunch of free flyers, why wouldnt you do it?

It's not like Rick is passing on Joe Burrow so he can compile a bunch of 5th-7th round picks. You're naming guys that he passed on that have nearly the same value as Mattison.

[CharVike]

Buddy, do you know how to build a SB roster? Because you keep claiming "thats NOT how you build a SB roster". Well if its not, then I'd like to know how you do it. So would every other NFL team. And I'm not sure what you and others think when these trades are happening but I can tell you Rick Spielman isnt trading a 1st round pick away for a 7th round pick. Like you guys do realize that right? He's literally trading down a few spots in the middle-late rounds and gaining an extra late pick most of the time. Like look at these 2019 trades he made:









He made FOUR trades and only dropped 21 spots from 81 to 102. Now mind you, this is the MIDDLE OF THE THIRD. Not the first round. It's a round where the players skill level that are still on the board starts to narrow. With pick 102, the Vikings drafted Alexander Mattison . Now, we traded down 21 picks and this is who we passed up:

S- Will Harris- 50.5
OG- Nate Davis- 69.7
CB- Justin Layne- 48.3
DT- Khalen Saunders- 64.3
DE- Jaylon Ferguson- 68.6
TE- Kahale Warring- 51.6
RB- Damien Harris- 90.3
LB- Cody Barton- 54.3
LB- Boddy Okereke- 49.6
OG- Connor McGovern- 62.2
OT- Trey Pipkins- 54.8
OT- Chuma Edoga- 61.3
WR- Miles Boykin- 62.5
CB- Jamel Dean- 76.6
DE- Oshane Ximines- 63.4
TE- Dawson Knox- 61.4
OT- Bobby Evans- 60.0
LB- Quincy Williams- 51.1
S- Mike Edwards- 77.0
QB- Will Grier- DNP
OT- Yodny Cajuste- DNP

Alexander Mattisons PFF grade..... 80.6

So please tell me who above would've been the right piece to the puzzle that would've been "a SB caliber roster" pick?? I can answer for you and say there wasnt one and there usually isnt in those rounds or later no less. So in the end, what the hell is all the complaining really about? We're still gaining a quality player and adding a free flyer at the end. I'd take that any day of the week.




If you only knew. The Jets arent trading their 2nd round pick thats 2nd in that round plus their 1st rounder. No GM in the right mind accepts that.



You seem like you have it all figured out....



Where are you getting this OL will be garbage from? It's easily the most promising our OL has looked in years. All higher draft picks, all under rookie deals, all young and not overpaid, all with potential. They have their veterans at this point in Oneill and Bradbury. I dont want overpaid free agent veterans. As good as Thuney is, he's overpaid. $16 mill a year AAV for a guard is asinine.



Now you're just contradicting yourself. You said we should've picked Sewell, who is also a LT and a position of need. So you're criticizing Spileman for drafting Darrisaw because he was blinded by need yet you're sitting here saying we should've traded up for Sewell??



Dude what on planet earth are you talking about? He wanted TV time and not focused on his job?? I'm sorry but that's just laughable. I have zero clue where you are even getting that info / hunch from.

Honestly, save your breath, at this point he is convinced of his position and this discourse will probably end up with frustration on both parts. I still absolutely agree with your position on this though. This season has a lot of promise and the offensive line isn't magically going to be fixed in one season, but a line of nothing but home grown talent with all the potential in the world looks like an absolute winner to me. Give the line two years and see how it looks.

I have no frustration over this at all. Our OL is not very good. We have different opinions on the fix. Immediate or the waiting game. If everything breaks right it will be good in two years. OK that's fine. In the meantime what QB should play behind this not very good OL. Our biggest CAP investment? One of our kids so they can develop along with the OL? I would play the kids. Let them bring the play in and switch out each play. Just like the Morton/Stauback days except Stanley/Mond. They can all grow together. That would provide a different twist and interesting wrinkle. Be confusing for opposing defenses also. Trade Cousins for draft capital and see what happens. Worse case it will be a total failure and the 1st pick of the draft next year. Should be a QB in that spot. Not many have see this before. I would approach Carolina and say hey you are basically screwed this year with that stiff Darnold but we have a fix for you. If Brady gets old they could win the division with Cousins. Make that Stafford deal look lite. Not that Cosuins is a Rodgers but he would be in the same spot as Dak. A division with no QBs in it. He would be a winner for once. Then trader down Rick would have some picks to work his magic. Just don't trade the 1st overall pick to move down for late round capital. Get the QB first. This will never happen but that's my Super Bowl plan.

[VikingsVictorious]

I find Rick's trade downs in past years to collect 7th rounders maddening, particularly last year when everyone knew there would be less than the usual time in camp, and therefore less learning by players and evaluation by the coaching staff. And not surprisingly not a single one of all of those 6th and 7th rounders made the active roster (who knows maybe 1 or 2 will this year after a year on the PS). This is where I stand and I've commented on this frequently over the past several years.

That said, I find the criticism of the 1st rd trade back this year mind boggling. If we had stood firm at 14 and drafted Darrisaw, it would have been a solid pick, decent value at a position of need. I think most "experts" would have agreed with that, and few if any would have criticized the pick. But to trade back, still get Darrisaw AND add Mond and Davis???? That was a home run by Rick, IMHO.

Look, we won't know for some time how any of these picks will work out. Maybe they will all be busts.....maybe Mond will be the next Brady and lead us to multiple Lombardis. Who knows
But right here and now....is there anyone on this board (or in the world for that matter! ) that would trade Darrisaw, Mond and Davis for ANYONE available at 14????

Only if that person was omniscient.

[VikingsVictorious]

Damien Harris's pff grade is 90.3 and is arguably the much better back.
Nate Davis fills a huge need and would have made the team significantly better last year starting over Dozier. I can't say for sure Mattison makes all that much of a difference over Boone if he was the #2 back.
Jamel Dean was a pretty good CB for TB in their SB run.

I would take those 3 over Mattison and whatever garbage the Vikings drafted with the picks they traded down for in a heartbeat, but who is to say the Vikings would have drafted one of those guys and not Mattison anyway if they had stood pat?

So opportunities to draft better if they had kept the pick, but not necessarily better results if they had.

I would say Damien Harris is the better back too but regardless, Cook is our starter and that doesnt make our team any better really. If anything it's a slight upgrade at backup RB.

Sure Nate Davis is better than Dozier, but who isnt. That helps the OL by drafting him but not sure it makes the team "significantly better". Davis still struggled in pass pro which was our biggest problem. He was an excellent run blocker but it makes me wonder with some of these guys blocking for Derrick Henry and Dalvin Cook. Is player A on the OL really that good of a run blocker or are Derrick Henry and Dalvin Cook just that good? Either way, Davis was an improvement over Dozier but Davis doesnt put this team in the playoffs. And in the end, they draft Cleveland and Wyatt Davis the last two years. So would having Davis instead of one of those guys really lead us to a SB? No. They really just negate each other in the end.

Dean was solid for TB. But again, does Dean bring us a SB? Probably not. We follow it up with drafting Gladney (unfortunate situation), Dantzler and Hand. To then signing Peterson and Breeland. He would've helped out last year but I still dont see them in the playoffs because of Jamel Dean.

Point is, CharVike claims these moves and trade downs were costing us Super Bowls. That is false.

And in the end, those trades ended up landing us Alexander Mattison, Cam Smith, Marcus Epps, Oli Udoh, Kris Boyd and Dillon Mitchell. Again most were flyers, some who became depth pieces, others who didnt make the team. But when you move back 21 spots and lose very little, if anything at all, but receive all these extra flyers, who in the right mind wouldnt take that chance? You're getting free draft picks and we all know the draft is a crap shoot.

For example, Diggs. Yes I know he was one of the "only players that panned out". But that's exactly the point. 95% of players from round 5 and beyond dont pan out. They are usually depth pieces at best. But once in a while you're going to strike gold. And if in that time, you didnt pass up on much, still get a solid player and a bunch of free flyers, why wouldnt you do it?

It's not like Rick is passing on Joe Burrow so he can compile a bunch of 5th-7th round picks. You're naming guys that he passed on that have nearly the same value as Mattison.

Damien Harris may be the better back, but I'm not convinced of that. Regardless the idea is we have to get impact starters out of 6th and 7th round picks. Not backups out of 3rd round picks. We passed on zero impact starters even if we were all knowing, we couldn't have got an impact starter.

[StumpHunter]

Point is, CharVike claims these moves and trade downs were costing us Super Bowls. That is false.

I agree. This isn't why we haven't won a SB. It is a bad strategy to risk getting a guy you want to pick up picks that don't amount to anything, but it likely isn't costing us multiple wins a season.

And in the end, those trades ended up landing us Alexander Mattison, Cam Smith, Marcus Epps, Oli Udoh, Kris Boyd and Dillon Mitchell. Again most were flyers, some who became depth pieces, others who didnt make the team. But when you move back 21 spots and lose very little, if anything at all, but receive all these extra flyers, who in the right mind wouldnt take that chance? You're getting free draft picks and we all know the draft is a crap shoot.

No other GM takes that chance as often as Rick does though. Probably because all they end up with when they trade down is guys like Udoh, Epps, Boyd and Mitchell. The type that will be available in UDFAs and on the waiver wire anyway. If the Vikings really liked Mattison, why would you risk losing him for that kind of return?

For example, Diggs.

We got Diggs via the trade to Buffalo for Cassel and then we risked him going to multiple teams by trading that pick for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. Think about that, we risked Diggs and eventually JJ since that is who we got for him, for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. How is that a good drafting strategy?

In that same draft we risked losing out on Hunter for BJ Dubose and Mycole Pruitt by trading down TWICE.

That is like passing on a million dollar sure thing bet for the chance to win a million and 1 dollars. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[StumpHunter]

I find Rick's trade downs in past years to collect 7th rounders maddening, particularly last year when everyone knew there would be less than the usual time in camp, and therefore less learning by players and evaluation by the coaching staff. And not surprisingly not a single one of all of those 6th and 7th rounders made the active roster (who knows maybe 1 or 2 will this year after a year on the PS). This is where I stand and I've commented on this frequently over the past several years.

That said, I find the criticism of the 1st rd trade back this year mind boggling. If we had stood firm at 14 and drafted Darrisaw, it would have been a solid pick, decent value at a position of need. I think most "experts" would have agreed with that, and few if any would have criticized the pick. But to trade back, still get Darrisaw AND add Mond and Davis???? That was a home run by Rick, IMHO.

Look, we won't know for some time how any of these picks will work out. Maybe they will all be busts.....maybe Mond will be the next Brady and lead us to multiple Lombardis. Who knows
But right here and now....is there anyone on this board (or in the world for that matter! ) that would trade Darrisaw, Mond and Davis for ANYONE available at 14????

Only if that person was omniscient.

Trading down in the 1st when you have a range of guys who you like equally to pick up picks in a round where you have had a ton of success is the right move every time.

So is trading up to get a guy who you think is that much better than everyone else if he is available at 8.

Staying pat and over drafting a need at 14 was really the only wrong move there and that appears to be the one move Rick was unwilling to make. Got to give him credit for that.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Point is, CharVike claims these moves and trade downs were costing us Super Bowls. That is false.

I agree. This isn't why we haven't won a SB. It is a bad strategy to risk getting a guy you want to pick up picks that don't amount to anything, but it likely isn't costing us multiple wins a season.

And in the end, those trades ended up landing us Alexander Mattison, Cam Smith, Marcus Epps, Oli Udoh, Kris Boyd and Dillon Mitchell. Again most were flyers, some who became depth pieces, others who didnt make the team. But when you move back 21 spots and lose very little, if anything at all, but receive all these extra flyers, who in the right mind wouldnt take that chance? You're getting free draft picks and we all know the draft is a crap shoot.

No other GM takes that chance as often as Rick does though. Probably because all they end up with when they trade down is guys like Udoh, Epps, Boyd and Mitchell. The type that will be available in UDFAs and on the waiver wire anyway. If the Vikings really liked Mattison, why would you risk losing him for that kind of return?

For example, Diggs.

We got Diggs via the trade to Buffalo for Cassel and then we risked him going to multiple teams by trading that pick for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. Think about that, we risked Diggs and eventually JJ since that is who we got for him, for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. How is that a good drafting strategy?

In that same draft we risked losing out on Hunter for BJ Dubose and Mycole Pruitt by trading down TWICE.

That is like passing on a million dollar sure thing bet for the chance to win a million and 1 dollars. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Dude did you not read what you just wrote?! You literally just said.....

Trading down in the 1st when you have a range of guys who you like equally to pick up picks in a round where you have had a ton of success is the right move every time."

What on earth do you think I'm saying??!! It's the same difference. It doesnt matter the round. Nor what round "you have success in". That's like saying you're the Browns and you havent had success in round 1 so you're going to trade down so you can gain picks in the 3rd round where you've maybe had some luck in the past. Like what??? Any team can strike gold at any point in the draft. Yes, some rounds its more likely you hit but either way it's still the same gain/loss.

If you trade down in round 1 to pick 23 and gain two 3rd rounders with it, how is that any different in terms of value compared to trading

Do you really think when the pick was approaching for the Vikings that they only had ONE guy they liked in those mid rounds and decide to trade down 21 picks? No clearly there are multiple and it's why they are doing it. Because they can still land a player of value along with free fliers.

But either way, look at the draft value chart (which by the way, teams do still use, just simply watch the Carolina draft room video).

Yes I think the trade down this year was an excellent move:

We moved down to 23 and gained 66 and 86 by giving up 14 and 143. How does that shake out on the draft value chart? Good for the Vikings.

Vikings get 1,680 points in total, the Jets gain 1,292. That's a 30% gain on our part.

Now lets look at the trade downs in 2019 where we eventually landed Mattison.

We essentially gave up pick 81 in the 3rd round for picks 102, 162, 191, 193, 217 and 239

Vikings get 489 points vs the opposition which gained 308. That's a 59% gain on the Vikings part.

How you dont understand that that trade was 100% worth the chance in value is beyond me.

[StumpHunter]

I agree. This isn't why we haven't won a SB. It is a bad strategy to risk getting a guy you want to pick up picks that don't amount to anything, but it likely isn't costing us multiple wins a season.



No other GM takes that chance as often as Rick does though. Probably because all they end up with when they trade down is guys like Udoh, Epps, Boyd and Mitchell. The type that will be available in UDFAs and on the waiver wire anyway. If the Vikings really liked Mattison, why would you risk losing him for that kind of return?


We got Diggs via the trade to Buffalo for Cassel and then we risked him going to multiple teams by trading that pick for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. Think about that, we risked Diggs and eventually JJ since that is who we got for him, for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. How is that a good drafting strategy?

In that same draft we risked losing out on Hunter for BJ Dubose and Mycole Pruitt by trading down TWICE.

That is like passing on a million dollar sure thing bet for the chance to win a million and 1 dollars. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Dude did you not read what you just wrote?! You literally just said.....

Trading down in the 1st when you have a range of guys who you like equally to pick up picks in a round where you have had a ton of success is the right move every time."

What on earth do you think I'm saying??!! It's the same difference. It doesnt matter the round. Nor what round "you have success in". That's like saying you're the Browns and you havent had success in round 1 so you're going to trade down so you can gain picks in the 3rd round where you've maybe had some luck in the past. Like what??? Any team can strike gold at any point in the draft. Yes, some rounds its more likely you hit but either way it's still the same gain/loss.

If you trade down in round 1 to pick 23 and gain two 3rd rounders with it, how is that any different in terms of value compared to trading

Do you really think when the pick was approaching for the Vikings that they only had ONE guy they liked in those mid rounds and decide to trade down 21 picks? No clearly there are multiple and it's why they are doing it. Because they can still land a player of value along with free fliers.

But either way, look at the draft value chart (which by the way, teams do still use, just simply watch the Carolina draft room video).

Yes I think the trade down this year was an excellent move:

We moved down to 23 and gained 66 and 86 by giving up 14 and 143. How does that shake out on the draft value chart? Good for the Vikings.

Vikings get 1,680 points in total, the Jets gain 1,292. That's a 30% gain on our part.

Now lets look at the trade downs in 2019 where we eventually landed Mattison.

We essentially gave up pick 81 in the 3rd round for picks 102, 162, 191, 193, 217 and 239

Vikings get 489 points vs the opposition which gained 308. That's a 59% gain on the Vikings part.

How you dont understand that that trade was 100% worth the chance in value is beyond me.

If it were that simple no team would ever trade up in those late rounds, and every GM would be doing the same thing Rick is doing. Instead we see successful GMs trade back in the early rounds for 3rd rounders and even 2nd rounders, accumulating those, and we see the unsuccessful GM of the Vikings trading back in the 3rd to pickup up those late round picks that never work out.

0 hits in the 48 picks he has accumulated in the 6th and 7th round and 10 for 14 in the 3rd round since 2011, and you wonder why I am okay with him trading for more 3rd round picks but not for trading back for those 6th and 7th rounders?

[VikingsVictorious]

Dude did you not read what you just wrote?! You literally just said.....



What on earth do you think I'm saying??!! It's the same difference. It doesnt matter the round. Nor what round "you have success in". That's like saying you're the Browns and you havent had success in round 1 so you're going to trade down so you can gain picks in the 3rd round where you've maybe had some luck in the past. Like what??? Any team can strike gold at any point in the draft. Yes, some rounds its more likely you hit but either way it's still the same gain/loss.

If you trade down in round 1 to pick 23 and gain two 3rd rounders with it, how is that any different in terms of value compared to trading

Do you really think when the pick was approaching for the Vikings that they only had ONE guy they liked in those mid rounds and decide to trade down 21 picks? No clearly there are multiple and it's why they are doing it. Because they can still land a player of value along with free fliers.

But either way, look at the draft value chart (which by the way, teams do still use, just simply watch the Carolina draft room video).

Yes I think the trade down this year was an excellent move:

We moved down to 23 and gained 66 and 86 by giving up 14 and 143. How does that shake out on the draft value chart? Good for the Vikings.

Vikings get 1,680 points in total, the Jets gain 1,292. That's a 30% gain on our part.

Now lets look at the trade downs in 2019 where we eventually landed Mattison.

We essentially gave up pick 81 in the 3rd round for picks 102, 162, 191, 193, 217 and 239

Vikings get 489 points vs the opposition which gained 308. That's a 59% gain on the Vikings part.

How you dont understand that that trade was 100% worth the chance in value is beyond me.

If it were that simple no team would ever trade up in those late rounds, and every GM would be doing the same thing Rick is doing. Instead we see successful GMs trade back in the early rounds for 3rd rounders and even 2nd rounders, accumulating those, and we see the unsuccessful GM of the Vikings trading back in the 3rd to pickup up those late round picks that never work out.

0 hits in the 48 picks he has accumulated in the 6th and 7th round and 10 for 14 in the 3rd round since 2011, and you wonder why I am okay with him trading for more 3rd round picks but not for trading back for those 6th and 7th rounders?

I call complete and utter BS on your 0 hits in 48 picks claim. How many third rounders did we give up by the way accumulating the extra 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th round picks. We didn't give up a 3rd rounder in the Mattison deals. We drafted him with a third rounder.

[StumpHunter]

If it were that simple no team would ever trade up in those late rounds, and every GM would be doing the same thing Rick is doing. Instead we see successful GMs trade back in the early rounds for 3rd rounders and even 2nd rounders, accumulating those, and we see the unsuccessful GM of the Vikings trading back in the 3rd to pickup up those late round picks that never work out.

0 hits in the 48 picks he has accumulated in the 6th and 7th round and 10 for 14 in the 3rd round since 2011, and you wonder why I am okay with him trading for more 3rd round picks but not for trading back for those 6th and 7th rounders?

I call complete and utter BS on your 0 hits in 48 picks claim. How many third rounders did we give up by the way accumulating the extra 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th round picks. We didn't give up a 3rd rounder in the Mattison deals. We drafted him with a third rounder.

You tell me what those hits were in 6th and 7th round if it is BS.

I didn't say he traded out of the third I said he traded back in the 3rd.

[808vikingsfan]

I call complete and utter BS on your 0 hits in 48 picks claim. How many third rounders did we give up by the way accumulating the extra 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th round picks. We didn't give up a 3rd rounder in the Mattison deals. We drafted him with a third rounder.

You tell me what those hits were in 6th and 7th round if it is BS.

I didn't say he traded out of the third I said he traded back in the 3rd.

V V likes to call BS on people when there is none. Ignore.

[CharVike]

Point is, CharVike claims these moves and trade downs were costing us Super Bowls. That is false.

I agree. This isn't why we haven't won a SB. It is a bad strategy to risk getting a guy you want to pick up picks that don't amount to anything, but it likely isn't costing us multiple wins a season.

And in the end, those trades ended up landing us Alexander Mattison, Cam Smith, Marcus Epps, Oli Udoh, Kris Boyd and Dillon Mitchell. Again most were flyers, some who became depth pieces, others who didnt make the team. But when you move back 21 spots and lose very little, if anything at all, but receive all these extra flyers, who in the right mind wouldnt take that chance? You're getting free draft picks and we all know the draft is a crap shoot.

No other GM takes that chance as often as Rick does though. Probably because all they end up with when they trade down is guys like Udoh, Epps, Boyd and Mitchell. The type that will be available in UDFAs and on the waiver wire anyway. If the Vikings really liked Mattison, why would you risk losing him for that kind of return?

For example, Diggs.

We got Diggs via the trade to Buffalo for Cassel and then we risked him going to multiple teams by trading that pick for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. Think about that, we risked Diggs and eventually JJ since that is who we got for him, for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. How is that a good drafting strategy?

In that same draft we risked losing out on Hunter for BJ Dubose and Mycole Pruitt by trading down TWICE.

That is like passing on a million dollar sure thing bet for the chance to win a million and 1 dollars. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I never said trading down for 25 7th round picks cost us a Super Bowl. I said it was a waste of time and that has proven to be true.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I agree. This isn't why we haven't won a SB. It is a bad strategy to risk getting a guy you want to pick up picks that don't amount to anything, but it likely isn't costing us multiple wins a season.



No other GM takes that chance as often as Rick does though. Probably because all they end up with when they trade down is guys like Udoh, Epps, Boyd and Mitchell. The type that will be available in UDFAs and on the waiver wire anyway. If the Vikings really liked Mattison, why would you risk losing him for that kind of return?


We got Diggs via the trade to Buffalo for Cassel and then we risked him going to multiple teams by trading that pick for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. Think about that, we risked Diggs and eventually JJ since that is who we got for him, for the chance to draft Tyrus Thompson. How is that a good drafting strategy?

In that same draft we risked losing out on Hunter for BJ Dubose and Mycole Pruitt by trading down TWICE.

That is like passing on a million dollar sure thing bet for the chance to win a million and 1 dollars. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I never said trading down for 25 7th round picks cost us a Super Bowl. I said it was a waste of time and that has proven to be true.

If it's not effecting our run at a SB, then why does it matter? Why is it not worth it to take free flyers on late round players? Those moves by Spielman arent making or breaking this being a SB team. So if that's the case, yeah I'd do it 10 out of 10 times. Whether he's hit on them or not, Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, there are many players over time that have been pro bowl players that have came out of those rounds. Matt Birk, John Sullivan, Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis, Jason Kelce, Antoine Bethea, Delanie Walker, Antonio Brown, etc. They are out there. It's like hitting the lottery and your chances are very slim, but there is a chance. And if you arent effecting your team by trading down because there are multiple players you like in those mid rounds, go for it. There are no repercussions for doing so.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Dude did you not read what you just wrote?! You literally just said.....



What on earth do you think I'm saying??!! It's the same difference. It doesnt matter the round. Nor what round "you have success in". That's like saying you're the Browns and you havent had success in round 1 so you're going to trade down so you can gain picks in the 3rd round where you've maybe had some luck in the past. Like what??? Any team can strike gold at any point in the draft. Yes, some rounds its more likely you hit but either way it's still the same gain/loss.

If you trade down in round 1 to pick 23 and gain two 3rd rounders with it, how is that any different in terms of value compared to trading

Do you really think when the pick was approaching for the Vikings that they only had ONE guy they liked in those mid rounds and decide to trade down 21 picks? No clearly there are multiple and it's why they are doing it. Because they can still land a player of value along with free fliers.

But either way, look at the draft value chart (which by the way, teams do still use, just simply watch the Carolina draft room video).

Yes I think the trade down this year was an excellent move:

We moved down to 23 and gained 66 and 86 by giving up 14 and 143. How does that shake out on the draft value chart? Good for the Vikings.

Vikings get 1,680 points in total, the Jets gain 1,292. That's a 30% gain on our part.

Now lets look at the trade downs in 2019 where we eventually landed Mattison.

We essentially gave up pick 81 in the 3rd round for picks 102, 162, 191, 193, 217 and 239

Vikings get 489 points vs the opposition which gained 308. That's a 59% gain on the Vikings part.

How you dont understand that that trade was 100% worth the chance in value is beyond me.

If it were that simple no team would ever trade up in those late rounds, and every GM would be doing the same thing Rick is doing. Instead we see successful GMs trade back in the early rounds for 3rd rounders and even 2nd rounders, accumulating those, and we see the unsuccessful GM of the Vikings trading back in the 3rd to pickup up those late round picks that never work out.

0 hits in the 48 picks he has accumulated in the 6th and 7th round and 10 for 14 in the 3rd round since 2011, and you wonder why I am okay with him trading for more 3rd round picks but not for trading back for those 6th and 7th rounders?

First of all, define a "hit".

Second, there havent been any Tom Brady's coming out of those rounds for us. However, they've found a lot of valuable contributors which is what you're really looking for in those rounds. Anything better than that is a cherry on top. But I dont really know how many "hits" you really expect out of those rounds. It's the 6th and 7th round, the chances arent high. However, if you're in the 3rd round, can trade down lets say 10 picks and get an equivalent player PLUS gain a freebie at the end, why would you not?

That's like buying an item and then getting a free t-shirt or something with it. Like you dont really need the t-shirt, you have plenty but you'll take it right? Chances are slim that it becomes one of your favorite t-shirts, but there is most definitely a chance.