Jump to content

2018 Draft Picks, and where they stand today


HeydudemanG

Vikings 2018 draft class  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Vikings 2018 draft grade



Recommended Posts

I gave them a B at the time: 

...and I stick by that. 

I think it’s best to look at the return from any draft in terms of the early, middle and late rounds.  

The top part of the draft is where you expect to find long-term starters, and maybe stars.   

Mike Hughes looked great in training camp and preseason. Got burned a couple of times but played OK for a rookie. I think he’ll be a good starting corner, hopefully takes the mantle from Rhodes as CB1. I'd like to see him doing some kick returns this year too.

Brian O’Neill played RT earlier than expected, and showed he deserved to keep the job. Struggled with run blocking, as did the entire line really, but held up very well in pass protection. Should be the long-term starter. 

Player quality / value aside, it’s still fair to criticize the way the Vikings used their first two picks. As it turned out, Hughes might have been BPA but they didn’t really need another corner last year — or at least they didn’t since Holton Hill signed as a UDFA, stayed out of trouble for a few months and played well when he got the chance. O’Neill did play well but the only reason there was an opening at RT is that Remmers was moved in to RG, where he struggled all year, leading to his release this off season. Drafting a guard who could’ve started as a rookie — Hernandez, obviously, but if he somehow wasn’t a scheme fit how about James Daniels? — might have improved the line at 2 positions.

...

The middle rounds are for rotational or role players and developmental depth at premium positions.

Jalyn Holmes didn’t play much. He was learning a new position in preseason, moving to 3-tech, but then rotated in at DE the few times he was on the active roster during the season. The DT group was deep last year — he was behind 2 good vets who stayed healthy, in Richardson and Tom Johnson, and Jaleel Johnson played next to Linval at times as well — so the lack of playing time isn’t necessarily a bad sign. Not sure what he’ll turn into. He has some similar traits to Weatherly — very good but not great athleticism, little technical refinement — so we can hope he similarly turns into a decent rotational player in year 2 and a potential starter in year 3 and beyond. I have a lot of faith in the Vikings DL coaches to develop athletes. 

(The Vikings lost their original 4th round pick in the Bradford trade)

Tyler Conklin caught a few passes, had a drop or two, and was very bad as a blocker. Didn’t look like any kind of matchup threat as a receiver. Drafting Irv Smith basically guarantees he'll never start for the Vikings -- he's the most obviously busted pick already from last year. Maybe he can find a role as the 3rd or 4th TE, as long as he contributes on special teams. I wouldn't bet heavily on him making the team this year.

Daniel Carlson had a great season as a rookie kicker — for the Raiders. After struggling in preseason, he missed 3 FGs in Lambeau, including 2 in overtime, the second of which was from a very makable 35 yards. Carlson clearly has talent, but the Vikings made the least of it, with Zimmer and Priefer throwing the rookie under the bus, and releasing him after his 2nd NFL game. Carlson was picked up a few weeks later by the Raiders, where he was near-perfect for the rest of the year, going 18/18 on XPs and 16/17 on FGs, including a string of 15 in a row to end the season. Even with the nightmare game in Lambeau (misses from 48, 49 and 35), Carlson finished 24/24 of XPs as a rookie (Dan Bailey was 30/31 in Minnesota) and 17/21 on FGs with only the one miss from inside 45 yards (Bailey was 21/28 for the Vikings). 

So the Vikings managed to (1) draft a position they shouldn't draft -- never draft kickers!, by (2) trading up, which they shouldn't do -- never trade up! (unless it's for a QB), then (3) failed to develop their kicker's confidence, apparently because the coaches were unable or unwilling to handle him psychologically, then (4) cut the player they'd invested 2 late-6th round picks to trade up after only his 2nd NFL game, after which he (5) outperformed the veteran they brought in to replace him, a veteran who is (6) costing the Vikings $1M against the cap this year while Carlson makes the $570K minimum for the Raiders. 

The Carlson pick might be the single biggest fiasco in recent Vikings history, nothing but a succession of dumb and self-injurious decisions. 

...

Late rounders are for roster depth and developmental flyers. 

Colby Gossett seemed like a promising pick for a ZBS guard, based on his college tape. He apparently never impressed the coaches as he couldn't make it above 3rd string in preseason. He ended up on the practice squad, then was signed away by the Cardinals, after their OL was decimated by injuries. Gossett started 5 games in Arizona, grading out poorly (46.0, 80th of 88 guards) and allowing 5 sacks. So he's got a long way to go.

Ade Aruna was an athletic freak with poor technique who played out of position in his last year in college. He was over his head in preseason, not effective at all, then got hurt. He's already 25 (older than Danielle Hunter, who has 40 sacks in the NFL), so it's hard to imagine this experiment working out. 

Devante Downs was a very productive LB in college who blew out his knee halfway through his final year. He didn't play much -- even in preseason, he only played part of one game at LB, 2 on special teams, and in the regular season he had one snap at LB though he did play on special teams whenever he was active on game days.  I doubt he was fully recovered from the knee injury until the season started. There really isn't anything to evaluate him on. 

...

To evaluate the draft as a whole, most of the value of the draft is in the top 3 picks. Their last 5 picks were all taken later than #150, so Conklin (#156) and Carlson (#167) could arguably be considered late rounders.

I think it's reasonable to project Hughes and O'Neill as long term starters. If they both develop into very good players who deserve contract extensions, that part of the draft was a home run, even if the approach to roster management hurt them in year one (by ignoring the need for a guard). Again I'd give them an A for the players even though I don't like the way their strategy played out. 

Carlson is also obviously a successful pick in terms of player evaluation, even if the decision to use a pick on the kicker was wrong, and his career with the Vikings was completely botched. B+ for the player and F minus for everything else. 

I think we have to wait and see what we have in Holmes and Downs. Incomplete. 

Aruna is incomplete too, but I'm not holding out hope. 

Conklin is a bust, but as a 5th rounder you don't expect much. D. 

Gossett didn't play well but he has 5 NFL starts to his name, which is more than most 6th round picks can ever say. Maybe he turns into a Fusco level starter. B. 

...

So again, I'd give them a B. Most of the grade is from Hughes and O'Neill. I'm happy with both of those picks going forward. The draft as a whole is dragged down by the question mark around Holmes, the Carlson fiasco (which I find annoying but in the end isn't that big a deal) and the loss of Gossett if he does develop. 

 

Edited by Krauser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended both the "U" and Mankato State (at least that is what it was called back then), but apparently neither were able to penetrate my thick skull. I mistakenly applied my A grade thinking I was scoring this year's draft. 

I think the jury is still out on recent drafts, but last year's has an opportunity to shine if Holmes contributes more this year and they get anything out of Ade and Conklin. Hughes and O'Neill showed me enough to give the 2018 Draft a B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we get 2 starters out of that draft, its a good one. I think we will get that out of Hughes and O'Neill. Outside of those two, there is practically nothing. Hopefully Holmes can become decent depth.

Holton Hill showed something as a UDFA but... can he be trusted? Chad Beebe looks like he can be an effective slot WR but he needs to earn his stripes (or maybe his horns?) Mike Boone should be a decent RB3. I doubt Zylstra or Thomas make the team.

The UDFAs were better than the late round picks in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Rather than question them, I am just going to admire the optimism of @perrynoid and @DisplacedViking. I hope they're right, and there is a chance that they will eventually be right.  I just can't find those results yet and I grade on results not on hope for future potential.

Also, like I said I would have to convince myself that the Vikings 2018 draft was better than 27 other teams given what an 'A' means to me.  Or conversely, if I find five other teams that have gotten more production out of their 2018 draft I couldn't justify giving an 'A' to the Vikings.  Right now, I don't think finding 5 teams that have gotten more production after two years would be a very hard exercise (though admittedly I haven't done the exercise).

I am not sure those two grew up in the same grading system.  I took a graduate course in genomics ~15 years ago at the University of Minnesota and that was a walk in the park to get an 'A' in compared to how I remembered things -- only about 15 hours of work a week for an 'A' in that graduate class.  Pretty sure 15 hours of work per week wouldn't have been such a high grade 20 years earlier.  By now, who knows how easy it is to "earn" those grades.  On the other hand, I can't rule out that the pendulum came back in the last 15 years making the grade mean something again.  Though, judging by the Winona State kid I hired a few years ago with the impressive GPA, an A in a class means almost nothing at that school.

You two didn't go to Winona State, did you?

Should the draft be graded on a curve though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vikesfan89 said:

Should the draft be graded on a curve though?

Graders choice.

It would be hard to assign a percentage.  If you make a Hall of Fame selection 100%, a pro bowl selection 95% and so on it would be hard for any draft to ever average the 93% required for an A, or even the 85% required for a B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Graders choice.

It would be hard to assign a percentage.  If you make a Hall of Fame selection 100%, a pro bowl selection 95% and so on it would be hard for any draft to ever average the 93% required for an A, or even the 85% required for a B.

The numbers would have to be adjusted but I wasn't talking about a percentage. The way that you are grading is that only a certain number of teams can have a great draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

Graders choice.

It would be hard to assign a percentage.  If you make a Hall of Fame selection 100%, a pro bowl selection 95% and so on it would be hard for any draft to ever average the 93% required for an A, or even the 85% required for a B.

So what.

C is average, so that the standard of expectation.

B is good margin above expectation

And A far exceed them. Think of the Vikings 2015 class, although even that might not be quite an A level draft.

This is just how I view it tho, how you grade is your own prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vikesfan89 said:

The way that you are grading is that only a certain number of teams can have a great draft

Correct.  I don't believe in any grading system that results in more As than Cs.  Success in the NFL is relative to your competitors so it makes sense grade relative to them rather than relative to some arbitrary standard that might allow for 15 As and only 3 grades lower than a C.

9 minutes ago, Dolmonite26 said:

C is average, so that the standard of expectation.

B is good margin above expectation

And A far exceed them. Think of the Vikings 2015 class, although even that might not be quite an A level draft.

This is just how I view it tho, how you grade is your own prerogative.

I pretty much agree with all of this.  The only possible difference is I consider only results to this point.  I am not sure if you include possible future hopes like some others. In the end though, you are right that how any person grades it is a highly personal choice.  There is nothing wrong with projecting future results, but then I would have to do it for all 32 teams and that is something that is far too difficult for me to undertake. 

Results to this point are far below many other teams.  That is why I currently have the 2018 class at a D.  That isn't to say that in a year or two that class won't accumulate more results and start looking better than some of the other teams that currently have gotten more above average production out of their 2018 draft class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Another year in, I am interested in what others think of the 2018 class now. I see that I gave them a D when I last assigned a grade to them. Outside the top two picks this looks like a very rough draft. Hughes did contribute more last year so I am willing to up my mark to a C- with prospects of that increasing modestly looking pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously O'Neill has been very good.....but, if Hughes isn't healthy this year (you can't predict injuries, so I'm not judging them on that), it won't turn out to be a good draft......Just a reminder that no matter how much everyone loves those late picks, they just don't often turn out to matter all that much...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave them a C, and perhaps that was to optimistic.  O'Neil is obviously the best player out of that draft class.  There is no reason he can't be All-Pro at some point in his career.  Hughes, for me at least, is still somewhat of a question mark.  When he's on the field and not injured, there are times when he looks like the second coming of Terence Newman!  And some other plays he looks like the second coming of Alfred E. Newman!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add to my post from a year ago. 

Still would base most of the grade on Hughes and O'Neill. I think Hughes will be a good starter if he can stay healthy and O'Neill is on track to be one of the better right tackles in the league. 

Holmes doesn't seem likely to develop into a contributor, but maybe he'll have the 3rd year jump that Weatherly had in 2018 and Odenigbo last year. 

Conklin is decent depth at TE but that's it. Might lose his spot to Brandon Dillon, who almost beat him out last year.

Carlson had an OK but not great year kicking for the Raiders. 

Gossett didn't play in year 2 for the Cards and is now with the Browns. Seems unlikely he develops. 

Aruna and Downs are long gone.  

Lack of anything from Holmes drops this a little from the B I said initially, so C+/B-. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...