Jump to content

2021 Draft Talk


swede700

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

The Vikings will have the 14th pick. 
 

And for all of those who are undoubtedly going to whine about it, had the Vikings lost to Detroit, they’d be picking 12th. 

12 to 14 doesn't matter.

We were top 5 once. That would have had a bigger impact on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Last time the Vikings were picking 14th, that pick was used on a QB, right? Sam Bradford.

Yes. The eagles owned our pick at #14 in 2017.

That trade was such a massive waste. At least we helped yet another team win a Superbowl because of it though!! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2021 at 1:18 PM, Forge said:

Day 2 I think. I feel like he likely caps as an Andy dalton type. He could be a serviceable starter for a number of years

Agreed.  I've never considered him a 1st rd pick.  He has limited upside in today's NFL, as he's not an athletic QB and doesn't have a great arm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

Can't wait to see what 2 HOFers are drafted at 12 and 13

FWIW, the only 2 times that the Vikings drafted #14, they drafted legends Gerald Robinson and DJ Dozier.  However, the ones taken at #12 and #13 weren't great either:

1986 - Lions took QB Chuck Long (was an Iowa legend, but not an NFL legend) and Chargers took some OT by the name of James Fitzpatrick.

1987 - Cowboys took some DT by the name of Danny Noonan and the Falcons took QB Chris Miller, who had a decent career, but was derailed by concussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

Yes. The eagles owned our pick at #14 in 2017.

That trade was such a massive waste. At least we helped yet another team win a Superbowl because of it though!! lol

Derek Barnett hasn't been great, so I don't know that that helped them win anything and it's not like we missed out on anyone...still likely wouldn't have gotten Watson or Mahomes and most taken after them haven't made gigantic impacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Derek Barnett hasn't been great, so I don't know that that helped them win anything and it's not like we missed out on anyone...still likely wouldn't have gotten Watson or Mahomes and most taken after them haven't made gigantic impacts.

Barnett's strip sack against the Vikings in the playoffs helped the Eagles win the super bowl. Could have been the Vikings playing in that Super Bowl had the Eagles not had Barnett.

Instead the Vikings had gimpy Sam Bradford. I hated that trade the day it happened and time made it look even worse. 

Also, I wouldn't say that the Vikings wouldn't have ended up with Mahomes or Watson if not for that trade. Shaun Hill would have been a poor starting QB that year. The Vikings would have been picking much higher in a year when they wouldn't have needed to more than pick four picks higher to draft Patrick Mahomes. The pick used to draft Mahomes was "earned" with a 7-9 record. The Vikings were 8-8 with Sam Bradford. If we really think the Vikings would have not lost a single additional game with Shaun Hill, then the trade for Sam Bradford was an even worse trade than I imagined.

I'll put the over-under of additional games lost with Hill at QB instead of Bradford at 2 games. A 6-10 record would have put the Vikings in great position to draft Mahomes.

Edited by Cearbhall
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Barnett's strip sack against the Vikings in the playoffs helped the Eagles win the super bowl. Could have been the Vikings playing in that Super Bowl had the Eagles not had Barnett.

The Vikings could have tied it at 14-14, but there's no way to know whether it would have changed the outcome of the game.  The defense didn't play that well that game at all.  Based on how the play was designed, it could have been Joe Blow on that side of the line and they would have gotten the strip sack.  Barnett didn't do anything special.

It's a fair point on the Hill situation, but I will still hold out that it was the right decision at the time.  What happened after is irrelevant.  You can't go into a season with Shaun Hill as your starter for the full year.  That's a slap in the face to the rest of the roster.  I like Shaun Hill as a person, and he was a better QB 15 years in than Sean Mannion is now (not much though), but he couldn't be relied for a full 16 game slate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

I'd like us to move back if possible to recoup a 2nd round pick. You think anyone would be willing to make that move with us at #14?

Yup, too many holes on this team and too many positions to address with limited cap space. If we can pick up a second rounder that would be huge. Really wish we never made that Ngakoue trade in the first place. I think we end up taking Wyatt Davis or Kwity Paye in the first round. Either one of those players would make an immediate impact. Our biggest need is an edge rusher. Wonnum, and Mata-afa have earned back-up spots but I think Odenigbo will be gone and that opens up a starting spot. Kwity Paye in the first and Alijah Vera-Tucker in the second. Then we can grab a corner in the third like Eric Stokes, Deion Kendricks, or Thomas Graham. I think those are our three biggest needs in the draft: IOL, DE and CB. 

Edited by Purplepride323
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

It's a fair point on the Hill situation, but I will still hold out that it was the right decision at the time.  What happened after is irrelevant.  You can't go into a season with Shaun Hill as your starter for the full year.  That's a slap in the face to the rest of the roster.  I like Shaun Hill as a person, and he was a better QB 15 years in than Sean Mannion is now (not much though), but he couldn't be relied for a full 16 game slate.

You can't go into a season with Hill as the guy the team was planning on being the starter, sure. But the team was planning on Hill being their backup. It was only because of an injury that the team would have had to rely on their backup. That isn't great, but the rest of the roster would understand the situation. That is what backups are for. Many backups on the roster like to think that they get an opportunity to start when the starter is down. Panic trading for a starter isn't a great message to send to those guys.

Besides, what else would the roster have been expecting the team to do? Nobody on the roster knew that a Bradford trade was even a possibility that the team could have considered. Maybe the roster would have pushed for signing a guy that was one on the street and maybe the team should have signed one of those guys to have something behind Hill for the roster to put hope in when/if Hill showed that he couldn't handle the job.

Fwiw, the record shows that Hill was 1-0 in the games he started that year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Barnett's strip sack against the Vikings in the playoffs helped the Eagles win the super bowl. Could have been the Vikings playing in that Super Bowl had the Eagles not had Barnett.

Instead the Vikings had gimpy Sam Bradford. I hated that trade the day it happened and time made it look even worse. 

Also, I wouldn't say that the Vikings wouldn't have ended up with Mahomes or Watson if not for that trade. Shaun Hill would have been a poor starting QB that year. The Vikings would have been picking much higher in a year when they wouldn't have needed to more than pick four picks higher to draft Patrick Mahomes. The pick used to draft Mahomes was "earned" with a 7-9 record. The Vikings were 8-8 with Sam Bradford. If we really think the Vikings would have not lost a single additional game with Shaun Hill, then the trade for Sam Bradford was an even worse trade than I imagined.

I'll put the over-under of additional games lost with Hill at QB instead of Bradford at 2 games. A 6-10 record would have put the Vikings in great position to draft Mahomes.

I knew about the Barnett angle, but damn the rest of this post is pure depressing as hell 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CriminalMind said:

I knew about the Barnett angle, but damn the rest of this post is pure depressing as hell 

Sorry about that. I can say that while I hated that trade from the moment it was announced, I was not thinking at the time that the Vikings were costing themselves a franchise QB. That part is hindsight. I disliked the trade on the merits at the time alone. Knowing that we could have had Mahomes if not for that trade is pure hindsight that doesn't take into account how everything else may have changed if the Vikings would have been playing that season with Hill/Heinicke/free agent veteran.

Perhaps the Vikings would have lost to the Panthers putting both the Vikings and Panthers at 7-9 and changing the course of the draft such that the Panthers missed out on Christian McCaffrey and the Bills would have then picked McCaffrey instead of trading that pick to KC to be used on Mahomes. One could speculate anything they want, but I see the decision to trade for Sam Bradford as a bad decision even independent of all that speculation. The Vikings were trading for a QB that already two other teams decided wasn't worth keeping. When is such a QB worth a first round pick? 

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...