| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rpmwr19
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 16935
Location: Stillwater, MN
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Tom Pelissero @TomPelissero
Still trying to get clarification on Jefferson deal but here are #Vikings' 2013 picks: 1-1st, 1-2nd, 1-3rd, 2-4th, 1-5th, 2-6th, 0-7th.
Draft pick controversy.
_________________
Adopt a Viking - Erin Henderson
Stats: |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thanatos
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| rpmwr19 wrote: | Tom Pelissero @TomPelissero
Still trying to get clarification on Jefferson deal but here are #Vikings' 2013 picks: 1-1st, 1-2nd, 1-3rd, 2-4th, 1-5th, 2-6th, 0-7th.
Draft pick controversy. |
I like that much better. Still stand behind the point that the Vikings are trading down early in the draft. I don't see them holding that first pick right now, of course the draft board could easily change.
_________________
| Quote: | | I'm a Vikings fan, that must naturally mean that I'm a masochist, right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CriminalMind
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 2965
Location: Toronto, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Never a fan of trading down. I trade up, not down. Last years 3 to 4 was a special case were clev n tb wanted RB, n MIN LT was there regardless
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3394
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CriminalMind wrote: | | Never a fan of trading down. I trade up, not down. Last years 3 to 4 was a special case were clev n tb wanted RB, n MIN LT was there regardless |
When you're a team that still lacks depth in a number of positions, trading down is the smarter choice if you can get good value. Though there are some instances where you need to trade up if you are targeting a specific player (H. Smith)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric dunn
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 5050
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| eman9416 wrote: | | Any Terrence Williams comparisons? I've heard Andre Johnson mostly |
I really like Terrence, i would be very happy if the Vikes selected him in the 1st.
I think he and Justin Hunter will be the best two WRs from this class.
I would compare him to a player that Braylon Edwards was supposed to be coming out. Big, great athletic ability, under-rated explosiveness and deep speed.
_________________
Lil Uno on sig  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CriminalMind
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 2965
Location: Toronto, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Klomp wrote: | | CriminalMind wrote: | | Never a fan of trading down. I trade up, not down. Last years 3 to 4 was a special case were clev n tb wanted RB, n MIN LT was there regardless |
When you're a team that still lacks depth in a number of positions, trading down is the smarter choice if you can get good value. Though there are some instances where you need to trade up if you are targeting a specific player (H. Smith) |
Trading down dilutes the value of the average prospect. Also trading up increases potential prospect value. I also think having less depth could increase ur UDFA potential as a landing spot since theres less comptetion so agents could steer them your way
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3394
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CriminalMind wrote: | | Trading down dilutes the value of the average prospect. Also trading up increases potential prospect value. I also think having less depth could increase ur UDFA potential as a landing spot since theres less comptetion so agents could steer them your way |
If you're worried about diluting value, you shouldn't be so worried about UDFAs.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thanatos
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 476
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CriminalMind wrote: | | Klomp wrote: | | CriminalMind wrote: | | Never a fan of trading down. I trade up, not down. Last years 3 to 4 was a special case were clev n tb wanted RB, n MIN LT was there regardless |
When you're a team that still lacks depth in a number of positions, trading down is the smarter choice if you can get good value. Though there are some instances where you need to trade up if you are targeting a specific player (H. Smith) |
Trading down dilutes the value of the average prospect. Also trading up increases potential prospect value. I also think having less depth could increase ur UDFA potential as a landing spot since theres less comptetion so agents could steer them your way |
There is no point at staying in the same position to draft a certain player if you can trade down 5-10 positions and get the same player. That is assuming that the player is #1 on your board.
_________________
| Quote: | | I'm a Vikings fan, that must naturally mean that I'm a masochist, right? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CriminalMind
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 2965
Location: Toronto, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Klomp wrote: | | CriminalMind wrote: | | Trading down dilutes the value of the average prospect. Also trading up increases potential prospect value. I also think having less depth could increase ur UDFA potential as a landing spot since theres less comptetion so agents could steer them your way |
If you're worried about diluting value, you shouldn't be so worried about UDFAs. |
Not necessarily. Late round guys are drated for many different reasons other then BPA. Could be need, could be fit, could be specialst etc etc. you want to get the best players available with those upper picks. The depth added in later rounds likely offer basically same skill level as after draft free agents with a few years of NFL experience
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3394
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm warming up about drafting a WR in 1st round. It still isn't ideal for me, but I'd consider it.
Why?
-There's a good chance the top guys will be gone by our pick in the 2nd.
-Not sold on LBs outside of Minter.
-Not sold on CBs outside of Banks.
-DT depth is strong, we should take advantage of it like CB/WR in 2012 Draft.
-No other position provides 1st round value.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3394
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
According to Wobschall, we have
1st
2nd
3rd
4th (from DET)
4th
5th
7th (from ARI)
7th
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 39491
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Klomp wrote: | According to Wobschall, we have
1st
2nd
3rd
4th (from DET)
4th
5th
7th (from ARI)
7th |
What about our original 6th or the 6th from the Titans. Did we trade two 6th rd picks for a 7th and Jefferson? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arKnaD7
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 1441
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| vikingsrule wrote: | | Klomp wrote: | According to Wobschall, we have
1st
2nd
3rd
4th (from DET)
4th
5th
7th (from ARI)
7th |
What about our original 6th or the 6th from the Titans. Did we trade two 6th rd picks for a 7th and Jefferson? |
That's what it looks like form my end. I wouldn't be surprised if the second 6th round pick was conditional, based on playing time.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meixdaddy_10
Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 545
Location: Mankato, MN
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Thanatos wrote: |
I wouldn't mind seeing the Vikings acquire Wallace in FA, keeping Harvin & Wright and drafting a WR in the early 2nd (for this example Hopkins). That would be a good WR corps for Ponder to work with. |
That would be an awesome WR corps but it seems overkill to me. Theres only one football and Peterson and Harvin are gonna get the ball the majority of the time. Wallace wont come here knowing that cuz he'll want his share too, but if hes here thats another big share to go to a select few.
Then you have to figure in Rudolph, obviously our red zone threat.
Then you have to figure in Wright and said WR draft pick. I just feel that having so many weapons wanting the ball would hamper the development of these two.
I would rather use the early pick on a DT, LB, or CB. We need to build an elite defense. We saw what adding one safety did for us.
We could still use another WR..just wait til RD 5 to grab a developmental player/red zone threat AKA Marcus Davis VT (6'4" 230)
Thoughts?
_________________
AD is hotter than Madonna in a pointy bra!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klomp
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 3394
Location: The Home of Schwan's Ice Cream
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| meixdaddy_10 wrote: | | That would be an awesome WR corps but it seems overkill to me. |
Bingo.
Right now, here's how I see it:
Wright is 100% back, and I'd say Simpson is 98% back.
If Harvin returns we will add ONE receiver either in draft or free agency. If we decide to trade Harvin we will draft one receiver AND sign a free agent receiver. Jenkins, Burton, and Childs will compete for the 5th (and 6th?) receiver spot.
Harvin (or FA/Rookie if dealt)
FA/Rookie
Wright
Simpson
Jenkins/Burton/Childs
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
