Vikings acquire #23

[Captain Hindsight]

1 hour ago, gonzo1105 said:

Rumor is the 4 QBs are going to go in the top 6. Can’t say I’m super surprised. 
 

 

Every year 4 QBs are going in the top 6. 

 

Here is a fun mock of the 1st round of the  2022 NFL Draft

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

A few weeks back I thought we could trade Diggs to HOU for 23. Clearly, their pick was available.  I’d have gladly given up 60, a 4th and 2nd next year for that pick.

 

Great move Vikings

Im glad you’re not the GM then lol…

 

Yikes 😬

[mannc]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Im glad you’re not the GM then lol…

 

Yikes 😬

Not mention, anyone who thinks we could have gotten the 23rd pick for Diggs (or that there is any realistic way to trade Diggs) is detached from reality.

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

8 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:

Problem for the Vikings is I don't think they get into the top 3.

 

And if they miss out on the top 3 QBs, is it really worth trading a bunch of picks to get someone like McCarthy?

After the first 3 they are SOL….and most likely at least one of those three will be a bust.

[RobbRiddick]

It's always fun when you're a fan of a team you know is going after a QB early in the draft. 2018 was so much fun looking at all the tape on the top guys and wondering which one beane would go for

[without a drought]

So, this isn't an Aaron Williams thread?

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, RobbRiddick said:

It's always fun when you're a fan of a team you know is going after a QB early in the draft. 2018 was so much fun looking at all the tape on the top guys and wondering which one beane would go for

It wasn’t much fun in 2013.

[jkeerie]

9 hours ago, KingBoots8 said:

The Patriots are the dark horse here in my view. They need serious help, and with a new coach are allowed a little wiggle room before having to panic.

 

Vikes send 11, 23, and nex years’ 2nd to move up to 3. NE then sends their 3rd this year to Chicago to get Fields. They go WR at 11, OT at 23, and they have just filled 3 of their biggest needs. If Fields is bad, you’ll be in a position to get a better QB next year. They have the convenience of time for their new staff to get it right and can afford to shore up everything before QB if needed. If Fields does well, they’re set and they got some good quality picks in addition.

Wasn't next year's second part of the trade with Houston?

[stuvian]

11 hours ago, JoeF said:

 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, without a drought said:

So, this isn't an Aaron Williams thread?

We could easily change that 

[BillsFanForever19]

I don't think they can get higher than 5. 1-3 seem locked in on QB to me. Going to be really hard to convince Arizona to pass on Marvin Harrison Jr. and they have 2 picks in Round 1 already. Sure, they could have 3. But at the cost of MHJ (as well as Nabers and most likely Odunze)? I doubt it.

 

So I think they're looking at 5 as their ceiling, having to grab QB4. Probably 11, 23, and 108 for 5 and 37.

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

This is a play to get ahead of the Giants at 6 to draft McCarthy.  It's a pretty serious commitment of resources for a guy with mixed opinions from scouts.  When your team is up the creek at QB, I guess you roll the dice and take the best shot available.  We should all be glad that the Bills aren't in this situation.  I hope 6 QB's go ahead of the Bills at 28 and good talent drops to them.

[Richard Noggin]

15 hours ago, papazoid said:

 

i dont buy into the rule you downgrade next years pick

 

is next years #1 worth less than this years #1 ? (only if some generational QB was avail in either)

is next years #28 overall worth less than this years #28 ?.....i say no, they are equal

 

lets say vikings move up to #5

 

whats stopping another qb needy team,  say denver moving up to #4 ?

 

thats why alot of these trades happen during the draft and not days/weeks ahead

 

 

Time is money, though. Trade partner has to pay for a lost year of value/potential/development. Why would a GM trade out of a current pick just to wait a year to make that same-ish pick? 

 

(I can conceive of scenarios where a given round's perceived value has been exhausted and a team might prefer to preserve the original pick's "round value" by trading instead of reaching. Especially in the first two days of the draft. The long term value of those picks is arguably more important than any immediate, inflated need.)

[papazoid]

34 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Time is money, though. Trade partner has to pay for a lost year of value/potential/development. Why would a GM trade out of a current pick just to wait a year to make that same-ish pick? 

 

(I can conceive of scenarios where a given round's perceived value has been exhausted and a team might prefer to preserve the original pick's "round value" by trading instead of reaching. Especially in the first two days of the draft. The long term value of those picks is arguably more important than any immediate, inflated need.)

 

doesn't trade partner gain an extra year of team control at the end (just one year later)......both picks have the exact same equal time of team control....they just start and stop in different years.

 

only a GM who is confident he will be around for more than the current year would push off picks to the future. Conversely a GM who felt he was on the hot seat might mortgage the future and trade away future picks to improve immediately.

 

then you get into the speculative part where Hou may say Minn with a rookie QB will likely finish with a worse record in 2024 and that 42nd overall this year might become a 37th  next year. theoretically Hou gave up a pick valued at 780 for picks valued at 900... that "could" go higher if minny struggles (of course they could go lower).  Carolina traded the 10th overall to chicago and several picks that included a future #1 that turned into this years #1 overall because Car struggled with a rookie QB. Hou regime is confident. Minny regime lost cousins and is desperate to move up in draft to get a QB now.

 

is last years #1 overall pick more valuable than this years #1 ? without the hindsight of knowing who was picked.....the answer to me is NO, they are equal.

Edited March 16 by papazoid

[Shortchaz]

Texans gamble on Vikings being bad next year. 

Edited March 16 by Shortchaz

[zevo]

I wonder who is willing to trade out the top 3.

[bigK14094]

23 hours ago, Gregg said:

 

The Bears should call the Jets. The Jets have the #10 pick and could probably put together a strong package with picks. Rodgers is 40 going 41 and Wilson will be cut at some point. Tyrod Taylor is OK for a backup, but he isn't a long-term solution at QB either. The Jets would be a team that might be interested in Fields. 

Usually only 1 QB on the field though.....

[djp14150]

On 3/15/2024 at 10:19 AM, Process said:

That seems like bad value for Houston, no? What do the charts say? Go from 23 to 42 for basically just a second round pick next year 

It’s not

 

23(760) for 42(480)+ 2nd in 25 ( diff is 280 —non SB teams picks inn2nd are worth that)

 

as for the deal…those 2 picks get you 4OA.  They need to add something to get #3.  With it being for a QB it will likely be more.  If you are drafting a QB in the st and expect them tostart you don’t trade next years 1st

 

some examples— Carolina traded their 1st this year to chicago

houston traded up in 2017 with Cleveland. Cleveland got 4OA in 2018 from Houston.

KC traded pick in 2018 to buffalo but they were not starting Mahomes that year ( other than last game when things were clinched) so Buffalo got a playoff team  pick.