Draft Lead Up: Question 1 - OL Choice

[PrplChilPill]

11 hours ago, Eric dunn said:

Im surprised that Dillard isnt winning this by a landslide. LT is arguably the most important position on the OL and Dillard is a perfect fit with his athleticism. IMO if he's available he is the obvious choice. I do like Williams as well, and i think its more likely that he could be available. Its somewhat close for me but id take Dillard if hes there regardless of who is on the board. 

Also i dont get all this steam on Bradbury at 18, i dont get it at all. He's a very good prospect and like Risner id take him late 1st/early 2nd and be happy about that. But at 18 i think thats  a reach there. Id take Dillard, Williams, Taylor, Ford, AND Risner before i took Bradbury. Not to mention other positions. If those top 4 are gone at 18 that means a player with good value at a different position slipped. Maybe an edge rusher or Oliver or one of the QB's.

In a perfect world, we can get Dillard at 18 and then maybe someone like a Michael Jordan in the 3rd. A future line of Dillard-Jordan-Pat-Kline-O'Neil sounds pretty good to me with Reiff probably starting one year at LG.

Why is taking a long term starter at 18 a reach? Why is it ok to take him at 30, but not 18? 

If they don't have a new starting OG, this team isn't winning anything meaningful. I suppose they can keep passing on them, because somehow, every year Spielman has been GM, the draft just didn't have any good starting OL when the Vikings pick (other than O'Neil).

[Heimdallr]

Just now, PrplChilPill said:

Why is taking a long term starter at 18 a reach? Why is it ok to take him at 30, but not 18? 

I sort of disagree with the whole steal/reach/value mindset. Each team has different needs, systems, values, etc.. The whole scouting process is too subjective to worry too much about "value". One team might have a player with a 1st-round grade, or another team with a 6th, or the media "experts" might say he is a 3rd-round player, and all of those grades can be valid at the same time. If you have a player who you think will be a key contributor and fits your system, there should be no issues with taking them.

All of these different OL prospects have different strengths, weaknesses, mentalities and personalities. Finding the right fit for the team is every bit as important as finding the "best" player.

[Snake Plissken]

I don't see LT as an immediate need, as opposed to G.  I also don't see Reiff as G option.  Dillard may be the best pass protector, but he has some work to do in the run game. None of that would keep me from drafting him at 18, but it may keep me from taking him over Taylor, Williams, Bradbury, or Ford.

 

[Cearbhall]

32 minutes ago, Snake Plissken said:

I don't see LT as an immediate need, as opposed to G. 

Yeah, LT isn't an immediate need. But the draft isn't a tool to fill immediate needs anyway. LT is an imminent need. That is exactly what the team should be looking to fill with draft picks. Right now, it looks like the starting guards on the team are Josh Kline and Brett Jones. With starters like that, guard is certainly an imminent need as well.

It would be easy to argue that guard is an immediate need too (I would). The tool left in the team building to fill immediate starting needs at this point is mostly down to trades.  Rick Spielman has shown a willingness to fill needs on the offensive line with small trades such as Jones last year. Going further back, he brought Nick Easton and Jeremiah Sirles to the team via trades.

The Brett Jones trade doesn't look like yet like it was worth it, but neither did the Nick Easton trade after a year. In the end, Easton was easily worth the draft pick the Vikings gave up to bring him in. The Jones trade may similarly look like a good transaction for the Vikings before that book is done being written.

This time, I hope the Vikings trade is for an aging veteran instead of a young potential. The Vikings need something for right now and will hopefully get the young potential in the draft.

[vikingsrule]

2 hours ago, Snake Plissken said:

I don't see LT as an immediate need, as opposed to G.  I also don't see Reiff as G option.  Dillard may be the best pass protector, but he has some work to do in the run game. None of that would keep me from drafting him at 18, but it may keep me from taking him over Taylor, Williams, Bradbury, or Ford.

 

I see a need to rebuild the entire OL. However the pieces end up falling, I hope value is always considered. If a LT is far better value than an IOL, you take that player and figure it out. 

The only player I have confidence in 2-3 years from now is O'Neill and we don't know if he's a LT or RT. 

If Reiff moves to Guard and is cut in 2020, why is there reservation. if that LT drafted ends up being a long term starter at LT I doubt anyone will care. I'd prefer to not move young players around too much early on their career, let them learn one spot.

[Snake Plissken]

16 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

I see a need to rebuild the entire OL. However the pieces end up falling, I hope value is always considered. If a LT is far better value than an IOL, you take that player and figure it out. 

The only player I have confidence in 2-3 years from now is O'Neill and we don't know if he's a LT or RT. 

If Reiff moves to Guard and is cut in 2020, why is there reservation. if that LT drafted ends up being a long term starter at LT I doubt anyone will care. I'd prefer to not move young players around too much early on their career, let them learn one spot.

My point was the combination of OL situation and player value are both in consideration.  In an earlier post I had my top 5 lineman all in the same tier, and any one of them would be in play at pick 18.  So for me, it is about a combination of positional value, team need, positional flexibility, player grade, and floor/ceiling factor.  The 5 guys I would want at 18 all rate a bit differently in each of those categories.

[Uncle Buck]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:47 PM, swede700 said:

That's certainly fair...it's too early to take him at #18 (as far as I'm concerned), but he ain't gonna make it to #50.  He's a late 1st-early 2nd type of guy.

I'm hoping we find a way to move down from 18 to the bottom of the first round.  Take a guy like Risner after that, and then use the extra draft capital to move up into the top of the second to get another good O-lineman. 

As for which one is my preference, I honestly don't have enough knowledge about any of them to have a valid opinion.  I just hope our front office picks the best player(s) for the scheme we want to run.

[Eric dunn]

10 hours ago, PrplChilPill said:

Why is taking a long term starter at 18 a reach? Why is it ok to take him at 30, but not 18? 

If they don't have a new starting OG, this team isn't winning anything meaningful. I suppose they can keep passing on them, because somehow, every year Spielman has been GM, the draft just didn't have any good starting OL when the Vikings pick (other than O'Neil).

Who's to say if any of these prospects are a long term starter, nobody knows yet. And its ok to take him later, because at #18 there is likely to be a player that has better potential & better value overall. I know some people dont believe in the whole value thing but i do, and thats where bpa/overall value/positional value comes into the equation. Lets just say Ferrell & Bradbury are sitting there available at #18, and we take Bradbury. Then in a few years Ferrell is an elite edge rusher and Bradbury turns out to be an average starter. Who was the better pick then? Not to say it cant be the other way around. But there are positions that in today's NFL hold a premium value over say a G/C. Imo we can get a guy who's possibly an average future starter in the 2nd-4th rounds to play G/C. But can we get an edge rusher potentially like Burns or Ferrell? Or a 3 tech like Oliver? A LT like Dillard or Williams? Look in the previous years, interior OL that were taken in the 1st graded out very similarly to those who were taken after the 1st. Also if we move down a bit we can STILL likely get one of the two AND collect an extra asset or two picks wise. That's why it makes sense to me. 

Im not saying that Bradbury would be a terrible choice there. Im saying if we take him over some of the other guys that might have higher grades just because we need IOL, that will be the mistake. And if the Vikings truly grade him that high & take him @ 18 then i stand behind that. 

I understand we need a new OG, but this draft is plentiful with guys in the 2nd-4th that can likely have a day 1 impact. Reality is most of these guys will/would be an upgrade on what we had last year. As it stands right now, i feel Brett Jones could start if need be. Although it wouldnt be ideal, its not like we have NOBODY. 

Rick is usually very good at anticipating how the draft could fall. Last year he didnt panic when the OL started going off the board, and he got O'Neil (very good pick thus far). So if he doesnt take OL at 18, i feel confident he has a plan in place. 

[Cearbhall]

30 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

A LT like Dillard or Williams?

Yes! Glad to see there are others on the site that see the benefit in taking a LT in the first round. When I suggested a LT in the first or second round there wan't much agreement on that and I was told that it would be crazy to draft a LT in the first or second round. I am happy to have someone else around that sees value in drafting a LT in the first round.

 

[PrplChilPill]

54 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

Who's to say if any of these prospects are a long term starter, nobody knows yet. And its ok to take him later, because at #18 there is likely to be a player that has better potential & better value overall. I know some people dont believe in the whole value thing but i do, and thats where bpa/overall value/positional value comes into the equation. Lets just say Ferrell & Bradbury are sitting there available at #18, and we take Bradbury. Then in a few years Ferrell is an elite edge rusher and Bradbury turns out to be an average starter. Who was the better pick then? Not to say it cant be the other way around. But there are positions that in today's NFL hold a premium value over say a G/C. Imo we can get a guy who's possibly an average future starter in the 2nd-4th rounds to play G/C. But can we get an edge rusher potentially like Burns or Ferrell? Or a 3 tech like Oliver? A LT like Dillard or Williams? Look in the previous years, interior OL that were taken in the 1st graded out very similarly to those who were taken after the 1st. Also if we move down a bit we can STILL likely get one of the two AND collect an extra asset or two picks wise. That's why it makes sense to me. 

Im not saying that Bradbury would be a terrible choice there. Im saying if we take him over some of the other guys that might have higher grades just because we need IOL, that will be the mistake. And if the Vikings truly grade him that high & take him @ 18 then i stand behind that. 

I understand we need a new OG, but this draft is plentiful with guys in the 2nd-4th that can likely have a day 1 impact. Reality is most of these guys will/would be an upgrade on what we had last year. As it stands right now, i feel Brett Jones could start if need be. Although it wouldnt be ideal, its not like we have NOBODY. 

Rick is usually very good at anticipating how the draft could fall. Last year he didnt panic when the OL started going off the board, and he got O'Neil (very good pick thus far). So if he doesnt take OL at 18, i feel confident he has a plan in place. 

You need five OL. Not panicking meant they had a terrible OL. So they could have another first round DB. Like three weren't enough.... For a supposed defensive genius....

[JDBrocks]

10 hours ago, PrplChilPill said:

You need five OL. Not panicking meant they had a terrible OL. So they could have another first round DB. Like three weren't enough.... For a supposed defensive genius....

Top 5 three years in a row, none of his first or second round defensive players have been busts, and he's developed later round players to be important contributors. Add in the fact that Mike Hughes was a Speilman pick, not someone that Zimmer was begging for and I'm not sure why you feel the need to get a dig in at Zimmer. I think we all understand that you (and most people, myself included) want the team to pick offensive lineman. That doesn't mean that Zimmer hasn't done a great job in creating a consistently great defensive unit.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Eric dunn said:

Lets just say Ferrell & Bradbury are sitting there available at #18, and we take Bradbury. Then in a few years Ferrell is an elite edge rusher and Bradbury turns out to be an average starter. Who was the better pick then? Not to say it cant be the other way around. But there are positions that in today's NFL hold a premium value over say a G/C.  So if he doesnt take OL at 18, i feel confident he has a plan in place. 

Do you realize how happy I would be if Bradbury was drafted and turned into an average starter?  Wouldn't be refreshing to have someone who is competent at least?

I get what you're saying about value and BPA and all...I just don't agree that it's always the best strategy.  Frankly all those first round DB's we've gotten in the last few years is a prime example of why you shouldn't draft BPA, in my opinion.  You draft according to need and scheme. 

If Spielman has a plan to improve that OL that doesn't include 18, I would be genuinely surprised. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

Top 5 three years in a row, none of his first or second round defensive players have been busts, and he's developed later round players to be important contributors. Add in the fact that Mike Hughes was a Speilman pick, not someone that Zimmer was begging for and I'm not sure why you feel the need to get a dig in at Zimmer. I think we all understand that you (and most people, myself included) want the team to pick offensive lineman. That doesn't mean that Zimmer hasn't done a great job in creating a consistently great defensive unit.

What's your definition of consistently great?  Don't get me wrong, they've usually been good, to very good, but I'm not ready to call any of Zimmer's Minnesota defenses great...just yet.

[JDBrocks]

They had a historically great defense in 2017. Yes they blew it in the NFCCG, but that was some of the best defensive football I've ever watched. Especially in an era that has been defined by offense.

I'd say that being a top 5 defense three years in a row in this era of the NFL is great.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JDBrocks said:

They had a historically great defense in 2017. Yes they blew it in the NFCCG, but that was some of the best defensive football I've ever watched. Especially in an era that has been defined by offense.

Fair enough...I guess I would still think of 2017 being a very good defense.  They got exposed badly by the Eagles, and that carried over to the 2018 defense in my opinion. That's why I wouldn't call it a great defense.  But, during the regular season they were fun to watch.