With the 18th pick in the 2019 NFL Draft, the Minnesota Vikings select Garrett Bradbury, C - NC State

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Why do you think he has a low ceiling?

Part of it is the position.  Do you see a truly elite C in the NFL right now?  Maybe two or three in a given season.  Unless you're able to cancel out guys like Aaron Donald, you're not really an elite center.  And I was talking about more about a guy you plugged in at C for the next decade and don't worry about the position.  Nothing about draft status.

3 minutes ago, Heavydan85 said:

I can sort of see Packers fans dragging the pick for positional value, given that it’s a division rival and GB has an excellent track record with OL taken on day 3. But I don’t know where you get the “not much more than solid”. 

Philosophically, I'm against taking IOL in the first round.  It's 99.9% of the time just plain bad value.  If both players hit their upside, who is more valuable Bradbury or Dillard?  I'd argue Dillard.  Now Dillard doesn't quite have the high floor that Bradbury does, but he also has a bit more upside than Bradbury.

[Magnus-Viktor]

22 minutes ago, marshpit23 said:

I Agree with Gnat on this point. Probably looking at DL, WR, TE in the next 3 rounds (not necessarily in that order) The 6th and 7th rounds we’ll add another OL, RB, LB, CB (in any order). 

I think CB is going to be a pick soon.  Rumors of trading Waynes, Hill is in trouble, and last year's #1 is rehabbing a knee.  Rhodes is getting older.  Zimmer has an affinity for corners as well.  The Bengals sure had a habit of taking them early and often when he was there anyway, and the Vikings seemed to have increased their CB drafting frequency since he went to MN as well.  

 

My ideal next 3 rounds for the Vikes, trying to be fairly realistic about availability (using NFL.com's rankings of the best still available):

 

50.  Dalton Risner, OL - versatility is the key here.  rated #42.

81.  Jace Sternberger, TE - a more dynamic receiving TE than the Vikes currently have.  rated #85

120.  Isaiah Johnson, CB - a big, but raw CB with perfect measurables (he might go in 2 or 3 instead of here.....but he is rated #122)

 

I wouldn't rule out Miles Sanders either.  Latavius Murray was the best RB on the Vikes last year, so he'll need to be adequately replaced unless I missed a FA signing.  

[swede700]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Part of it is the position.  Do you see a truly elite C in the NFL right now?  Maybe two or three in a given season.  Unless you're able to cancel out guys like Aaron Donald, you're not really an elite center.  And I was talking about more about a guy you plugged in at C for the next decade and don't worry about the position.  Nothing about draft status.

Philosophically, I'm against taking IOL in the first round.  It's 99.9% of the time just plain bad value.  If both players hit their upside, who is more valuable Bradbury or Dillard?  I'd argue Dillard.  Now Dillard doesn't quite have the high floor that Bradbury does, but he also has a bit more upside than Bradbury.

While I tend to agree with you on the point on taking IOL in the 1st round, when you have been as bad as the Vikings have at getting good IOL late, unlike your squad, you have to do something different. 

And as far as whether there is a truly elite C, no, there isn't, which is why it's quite possible the NFL is due for one.  

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

While I tend to agree with you on the point on taking IOL in the 1st round, when you have been as bad as the Vikings have at getting good IOL late, unlike your squad, you have to do something different. 

And as far as whether there is a truly elite C, no, there isn't, which is why it's quite possible the NFL is due for one.  

Trust me, it was probably the "right" pick all things considered.  Especially given how bad the Vikings have historically been with developing OL.

[Magnus-Viktor]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Part of it is the position.  Do you see a truly elite C in the NFL right now?  Maybe two or three in a given season.  Unless you're able to cancel out guys like Aaron Donald, you're not really an elite center.  And I was talking about more about a guy you plugged in at C for the next decade and don't worry about the position.  Nothing about draft status.

Philosophically, I'm against taking IOL in the first round.  It's 99.9% of the time just plain bad value.  If both players hit their upside, who is more valuable Bradbury or Dillard?  I'd argue Dillard.  Now Dillard doesn't quite have the high floor that Bradbury does, but he also has a bit more upside than Bradbury.

Bradbury has a very high ceiling.  If you don't see that, you haven't watched him play yet.  The only knock on him is the anchor, and I had the same reservations about O'Neill last year and he was much better than I expected.  I think that C is just as important as LT.  He makes all the calls.  What is the most disruptive thing you can get for an offense?  Pressure up the gut.  You can always slide a RB or TE over to help a T.  If a C gets beat, it's over.  A RB or FB or anyone else in the middle isn't going to stop a DT (or blitzing LB/S) that immediately burns the C.  That is the most disruptive thing for a QB, no pocket to step up into.  That also kills your running game.  Now that they've FINALLY transitioned away from the Adrian Peterson type offense that invited every team to constantly blitz up the gut since he couldn't function out of the shotgun and wasn't a receiver, they can build an offense the right way.  The right way is where you can do anything and everything with any personnel you have in there.  Teams have to respect your passing more and will get torched if they blitz the A gaps.  No one is going to stop Aaron Donald 1 on 1.  

I'm for taking OL in 1 no matter which one they are.  It's just a question of early 1 or late 1.  If they're good enough, take them.  I would've been all over Big Q last year if I had a top 5 pick.  Best player in the draft.  

As for Dillard vs Bradbury, I liked Dillard too.  OG/C was just a bigger need.  Bradbury is safer.  

[Magnus-Viktor]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Trust me, it was probably the "right" pick all things considered.  Especially given how bad the Vikings have historically been with developing OL.

The Vikings used to be know for having a great OL.  So "historically" isn't the right word here.  Lately.  Not historically.  

[swede700]

2 minutes ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

The Vikings used to be know for having a great OL.  So "historically" isn't the right word here.  Lately.  Not historically.  

I guess it depends upon your definition of historical.  It could mean the same as lately when you haven't had a dominant offensive line in 20 years. (No, the 2009 season doesn't count...it had a couple of good players, but it wasn't dominant) 

Edited April 26, 2019 by swede700

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

Bradbury has a very high ceiling.  If you don't see that, you haven't watched him play yet.  The only knock on him is the anchor, and I had the same reservations about O'Neill last year and he was much better than I expected.  I think that C is just as important as LT.  He makes all the calls.  What is the most disruptive thing you can get for an offense?  Pressure up the gut.  You can always slide a RB or TE over to help a T.  If a C gets beat, it's over.  A RB or FB or anyone else in the middle isn't going to stop a DT (or blitzing LB/S) that immediately burns the C.  That is the most disruptive thing for a QB, no pocket to step up into.  That also kills your running game.  Now that they've FINALLY transitioned away from the Adrian Peterson type offense that invited every team to constantly blitz up the gut since he couldn't function out of the shotgun and wasn't a receiver, they can build an offense the right way.  The right way is where you can do anything and everything with any personnel you have in there.  Teams have to respect your passing more and will get torched if they blitz the A gaps.  No one is going to stop Aaron Donald 1 on 1.  

I'm for taking OL in 1 no matter which one they are.  It's just a question of early 1 or late 1.  If they're good enough, take them.  I would've been all over Big Q last year if I had a top 5 pick.  Best player in the draft.  

As for Dillard vs Bradbury, I liked Dillard too.  OG/C was just a bigger need.  Bradbury is safer.  

Trust me, I've watched plenty of Bradbury.  Despite my lack of desire on taking an IOL early, I saw plenty of him.  Top ranked C prospect in the draft.  In an otherwise lackluster IOL class, he's the best.  Plug 'n play type.  O'Neill was raw both in terms of functional strength but also in terms of technique.  He was incredibly raw coming out of Pitt.  I wouldn't really call Bradbury raw in terms of technique.  O'Neill is probably closer to Dillard than he is Bradbury if you're going to make comps in terms of development.  The value of a C has probably gone up significantly in recent years, but there's a reason why guys get moved from the outside in and not vice versa.  It's damn near impossible to find big guys with elite feet.  There's a reason why the top LT is making $16M+, and the top ranked C is $11M+.  LT are significantly more valuable than C's.

But I go back to my original question, do you think Bradbury can hold up against the top DTs (not just Aaron Donald).  Do you think he's going to hold up against Kenny Clark 1-on-1?  Maybe it's the homer in me, but I'm easily taking Kenny Clark on that one.

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

The Vikings used to be know for having a great OL.  So "historically" isn't the right word here.  Lately.  Not historically.  

Sorry...I should have been more specific.  Meant more in the last few decades.

[Krauser]

25 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Part of it is the position.  Do you see a truly elite C in the NFL right now?  Maybe two or three in a given season.  Unless you're able to cancel out guys like Aaron Donald, you're not really an elite center.  And I was talking about more about a guy you plugged in at C for the next decade and don't worry about the position.  Nothing about draft status.

Philosophically, I'm against taking IOL in the first round.  It's 99.9% of the time just plain bad value.  If both players hit their upside, who is more valuable Bradbury or Dillard?  I'd argue Dillard.  Now Dillard doesn't quite have the high floor that Bradbury does, but he also has a bit more upside than Bradbury.

So yeah, positional value. 

FWIW, the NFL spends roughly as much on C as RG, and more at those positions than LG or RT. 

I agree that LT is more valuable, and was wanting them to draft Dillard. 

I disagree that Bradbury's ceiling is nothing more than a solid starter after you take position into account. He's got all kinds of potential athletically, he was very effective in college, and he's an ideal scheme fit. If the Vikings OL does improve dramatically, he'll get all kinds of recognition as a big name being given credit for the turnaround.

 

[Magnus-Viktor]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Trust me, I've watched plenty of Bradbury.  Despite my lack of desire on taking an IOL early, I saw plenty of him.  Top ranked C prospect in the draft.  In an otherwise lackluster IOL class, he's the best.  Plug 'n play type.  O'Neill was raw both in terms of functional strength but also in terms of technique.  He was incredibly raw coming out of Pitt.  I wouldn't really call Bradbury raw in terms of technique.  O'Neill is probably closer to Dillard than he is Bradbury if you're going to make comps in terms of development.  The value of a C has probably gone up significantly in recent years, but there's a reason why guys get moved from the outside in and not vice versa.  It's damn near impossible to find big guys with elite feet.  There's a reason why the top LT is making $16M+, and the top ranked C is $11M+.  LT are significantly more valuable than C's.

But I go back to my original question, do you think Bradbury can hold up against the top DTs (not just Aaron Donald).  Do you think he's going to hold up against Kenny Clark 1-on-1?  Maybe it's the homer in me, but I'm easily taking Kenny Clark on that one.

Well, I've watched plenty of great centers play every Sunday for the last 30 years.  A great center makes a huge impact on an offense.  The Vikings have had their share of good ones.  The difference is palpable when you go from good to bad, or from bad to good.  Birk, Christy, Sullivan was ok, etc.  

I don't dispute that it's harder to find a great LT.  Supply and demand is why they're paid more, and thus valuable.  Not because they're significantly more important.  I think a lot of that depends on scheme too.  

It would be a fairer comparison to ask if he'd hold up against Dexter Lawrence or Christian Wilkins (rookie DTs drafted close to where he was), rather than an NFL star or even just one like Clark that has had 3 years in an NFL strength training program & 3 years of NFL coaching.  I have no idea there.  This type of OL isn't really designed to block 1 on 1.  It's zone blocking which means combo blocks.  So you also have to account for the schematic fit.  It's designed so athletic guys like him can get to the 2nd level and spring a back for a big play, and that's what he'll be great at.  

So we'll just have to wait and see.  As I said before, I see a lack of power from him, but he's also a converted TE and hopefully he'll develop a better anchor in the NFL.  I was impressed with O'Neill's right away, so maybe some technique/strength training worked wonders for him right away.  

[Krauser]

Just now, Magnus-Viktor said:

It would be a fairer comparison to ask if he'd hold up against Dexter Lawrence or Christian Wilkins (rookie DTs drafted close to where he was), rather than an NFL star or even just one like Clark that has had 3 years in an NFL strength training program & 3 years of NFL coaching.  I have no idea there. 

Bradbury held up very well: 

 

 

[Krauser]

Josh Kline's RAS was 7.81.

Hard to see Elflein holding up at guard.

[Klomp]

 

[TENINCH]

wrong thread

Edited April 26, 2019 by TENINCH