byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 Also...what is his problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: Draft trades, or lack of trades, has nothing to do with why I want Spielman fired but there were trading partners if Spielman wanted to trade up. To debunk the lack of trading partner myth: Patriots traded up for pick 101. Patriots traded up for pick 91. Lions traded up for pick 75. Saints traded up for pick 74. We know for sure that there were at least four teams willing to trade back. Two of those picks were after 89. Saints overpaid bigtime. They gave up a third next year. And perhaps, the trade they were trying to make were before 74 and the players they had after that were graded about the same Edited April 25, 2020 by byuvike88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, byuvike88 said: Two of those picks were after 89. Saints overpaid bigtime. They gave up a third next year. And perhaps, the trade they were trying to make were before 74 and the players they had after that were graded about the same That all could be true but the statement I was refuting was much more general about trading up in the third, not from pick 89. If the Vikings wanted to trade up in the third their were teams willing to drop back. And if they weren't interested in trading up for guys that were around at a given pick then the reason they didn't trade is because they weren't interested in the players available at those spots, not because there were no dance partners. Late Add: And did the Saints really overpay big time? Their third next year is worth what, ~50 points on the chart? Their pick 88 is worth 150 and they went up to pick 74, which is 220 points. Edited April 25, 2020 by Cearbhall Late Add Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 This is absolutely the draft to have as many lottery tickets as possible. Especially if there’s no season or a severely shortened one. These are the kind of drafts that can build a team for a decade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: That all could be true but the statement I was refuting was much more general about trading up in the third, not from pick 89. If the Vikings wanted to trade up in the third their were teams willing to drop back. And if they weren't interested in trading up for guys that were around at a given pick then the reason they didn't trade is because they weren't interested in the players available at those spots, not because there were no dance partners. This doesn't make sense. If they targeted a player say at 70, say Madubuke, but couldn't find a partner that wasn't willing to move back then this is the case of not being able to move up. And if you don't have players valued to a point where you feel you need to trade up why would you? Edited April 25, 2020 by byuvike88 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 I’m going to make a not-so-bold prediction: the players the Vikings draft tomorrow will make as many, or more, pro bowls as any of the players taken from pick 90-105. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, byuvike88 said: This doesn't make sense. If they targeted a player say at 70, Madubuke but couldn't find a partner that wasn't willing to move back then this is the case of not being able to move up. And if you don't have players valued to a point where you feel you need to trade up why would you? The statement I was responding to didn't say anything about Madubuike. It said: "Spielman said Vikings tried to move up in Rd 3, but teams just liked players that were there so they couldn't get a deal. Bet here is that they were trying to get a DT. Couldn't find the dance partner." If they wanted to move up to get at DT Elliot went right in front of them. I don't buy that there were no dance partners. If they weren't interested in Elliot, then their lack of interest is the reason they didn't trade up for him, which is fine. Edited April 25, 2020 by Cearbhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 Just now, Cearbhall said: The statement I was responding to didn't say anything about Madubuike. It said: "Spielman said Vikings tried to move up in Rd 3, but teams just liked players that were there so they couldn't get a deal. Bet here is that they were trying to get a DT. Couldn't find the dance partner." If they wanted to move up to get at DT Elliot went right in front of them. I don't buy that there were no dance partners. That's my point though. Maybe they didn't like Elliot. The tweet said "a DT". Which you could take as just a DT in general. Or a specific DT which I picked Madubuike because he was picked above the area of trades you pointed out. And that was just Jon speculating on the position he thought it could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, byuvike88 said: That's my point though. Maybe they didn't like Elliot. The tweet said "a DT". Which you could take as just a DT in general. Or a specific DT which I picked Madubuike because he was picked above the area of trades you pointed out. And that was just Jon speculating on the position he thought it could be. I agree that maybe they didn't like Elliott. And that is why they didn't trade up in round three -- because they didn't want to trade up for the guys that were available in round three when there were dance partners. Not because they couldn't find a dance partner in round three. If we were talking about a specific player and a specific spot it may be different, but what I was responding to was not talking about a specific player at a specific spot. And if you want to get hung up on talking specifically about Madubuike at 71: Panthers traded up to 64 Patriots traded up to 60 There were dance partners all along the draft. For every trade that happened there were teams that would have been willing to trade down that didn't because nobody offered them a good enough deal. Edited April 25, 2020 by Cearbhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: I agree that maybe they didn't like Elliott. And that is why they didn't trade up in round three -- because they didn't want to trade up for the guys that were available in round three when there were dance partners. Not because they couldn't find a dance partner in round three. If we were talking about a specific player and a specific spot it may be different, but what I was responding to was not talking about a specific player at a specific spot. We are talking in circles. Both things can be true. "we tried to trade up, (say for Madabuke) but couldn't find a partner. So yes they tried to trade up in the third but couldn't find a partner so they decided to stand pat the rest of the way because they didn't value another player to trade up for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, byuvike88 said: We are talking in circles. Both things can be true. "we tried to trade up, (say for Madabuke) but couldn't find a partner. So yes they tried to trade up in the third but couldn't find a partner so they decided to stand pat the rest of the way because they didn't value another player to trade up for. Sure both things can be true. Did I say otherwise? I have tried to clarify that the statement I was refuting was not that we couldn't trade up for a specific player at a specific position. I was refuting that the Vikings couldn't trade up in the third round because they couldn't find a dance partner. That is what I am saying is false. And it is. Edited April 25, 2020 by Cearbhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byuvike88 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 It isn't false if they tried to trade up before 70 and couldn't find a partner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb_K Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 1 hour ago, byuvike88 said: Also...what is his problem? How could they have been much closer than where they were at an impasse on Thursday, with The Redskins wanting The Vikings higher 3rd Rounder, and The Vikings wanting to give their earliest 4th Rounder. No problem. The Vikings give them their last 3rd Rounder (cutting gap down the middle). THAT couldn't be what has kept the deal from being made. What is more likely, is that The Vikings couldn't accept Williams' hard line on lowering his salary demands or his view of what the contract's term should be. The contract Williams was willing to sign must have not cut his 2020 and 2021 Cap hit enough for The Vikings to sign all their key players and be under the cap. So, despite "reports" that The Vikings are out of the running to get Williams in trade, I don't believe that's true. I think they are in it until Williams can agree on contract terms with another team who wishes to land him in trade. If he can't agree with any other team, he (being the cause of the trade not happening) MIGHT well decide to lower his demands, and make a compromise with The Vikings, so he can get out of Washington. I don't believe he wants to sit out 2 seasons in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Cearbhall said: Given the lack of pro days, it may be a better than average year to go for quantity. 2 hours ago, Klomp said: 1 hour ago, Klomp said: I think something else to consider about the extra picks is the fact that there will be a lot more competition this year than many years past. How many DL have established themselves in this league to where they should have locked in roles and roster spots? How many DB have established themselves in this league to where they should have locked in roles and roster spots? How many WR have established themselves in this league to where they should have locked in roles and roster spots? How many OL have established themselves in this league to where they should have locked in roles and roster spots? Sure there are guys who are our favorites, who we think could grow into those roles. But very few players have already earned those roles. I think the depth chart will be very fluid entering training camp. 1 hour ago, Cearbhall said: Teams can now keep 67 players throughout the season: 55 on the active roster and 12 on the practice squad. That is an increase of four players. So, if Rick used to want 10 picks to try and make, say 8, roster spots on his team it makes a bit of sense with 4 more roster spots that he may want 15 picks dedicated to 12 roster spots on the team. That is 80% of draft picks making the roster. Didn't notice during my hiatus that the roster limit had expanded. 48 players on game day, 55 player rosters, 12 player practice squads. +2 throughout. Makes sense for Spielman to trade down -- as Klomp says, the Vikings would want to churn enough rookies into their system that they can have competition and depth all the way through the larger roster. They lost a lot of depth from last year's roster. A few of the positions have been replaced (Jefferson for Diggs, Gladney and Dantzler for Alexander and Waynes, Pierce for Joseph) but many of them haven't, including 2 backup safeties, 2 DEs, a guard (though maybe Reiff moves inside now) and a LB. On top of that, a lot of their depth is unproven, and many of the depth players who've had a chance to show their stuff haven't impressed. Even giving them credit for a few decent backups (Wilson, Collins, Dozier, Conklin, Abdullah) and a few promising developmental players (Bisi, Udoh, Watts, Samia), there's lots of room for competition: QB3: Browning WR4/5: Beebe, Sharpe TE4: Dillon RB4: Boone OL depth: Elflein, Jones, and Collins DE3/4: Zettel, Yaborough maybe? DT4/5: Jaleel Johnson, Holmes, Mata'afa LB5/6: Cam Smith, not sure after that CB5/6: Boyd, Meadors S3/4: (tumbleweeds) That's something like 18 positions that could use some competition. None of the players listed would be surprising cuts this year. Not all of those positions would make the final roster, but it would be good to have improved depth across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithVikings28 Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 We are having a great draft. Starting to warm up about the Jefferson pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.