Brett's Vikings Mock Draft v1.0

[Brett A.]

Enjoy ladies and gents! I may do a second and third round soon... Will definitely highlight the Vikings picks anyway.

[Purple Faithful]

SO, RG3 is available at pick 3 & the Vikings stand pat & take Kalil? Seems very unlikely & enough to make me swear off Viking football. Remember the time when the Vikings didn't select Dan Marino because we had the great tommy kramer. ah, good times. Remember when the vikings passed on the superior talent player because they over-think things? Like taking Darren Nelson over Marcus Allen or taking Derrick Alexander over Warren Sapp. Newsflash: QB is more important than left tackle, as is basically every position on the football field.

First off, let me just say taking LT's in the top 5 is something retards do. As evidence, I offer the teams that have "successfully" done so: Cleveland & Miami. Life's big question there: will Long & Thomas ever play in the postseason. Drafting offensive lineman early is a cliche. Let's look at the superbowl-winning offensive line this year:

5.160 David Diehl, LT (started year at guard, also played LT previous SB win)
2.34 Chris Snee, G
2.33 David Bass, C
6.176 Kevin Boothe, G
3.79 Kareem McKenzie, RT

When the Giants were picking in the top 3, what did they draft? They are not retards, so they took a quarterback instead of a LT. Who was that QB? Eli Manning. (swapping phillip rivers in a trade, actually, but you get the idea) Who was the Giants QB at the time? A guy named Kurt Warner. (Are you Ponderholics really saying Christian Ponder deserves more of an opportunity than Kurt Warner? )

So, what do the Giants draft in round 1? Quarterbacks, Wide receivers & defensive lineman (in spades); heck they even have taking corners (PA was a bit disappointing for them, but they already have tuck, Osi, & JPP, hard to take another D-lineman). Why do we have to deviate from what actually wins championships? Just draft RG3 & either trade him for a crazy offer or play him. If you trade him for a crazy offer, here's another hint - the great teams seem to have better talent at guard than tackle. It allows the quarterback to step up & avoid the DE running around your left tackle. No place to step up = sack. So, if our first pick is gonna be wasted on an offensive lineman, (after trading back) look hard at the guards. Better yet, trade back, take defense & address guard/tackle in round 2 with our bounty of booty from the trade & we can all be sick to our stomachs watching RG3 tear it up for a decade for some other team.

[adammwarwas]

I would argue that your premise is flawed.

Adding high quality players via the Draft, regardless of position, does not somehow hamstring teams. You can argue that some positions have more importance than others, but I really don't think that adding high quality players dooms a team to fail. That point is ten-fold with the new rookie wage scale. Furthermore, I don't consider myseld a Ponderholic by any means, but realists understand that Leslie Frazier and Rick Spielman do believe in him and that the Vikings will not try to replace him in his second year, deservedly or otherwise.

I try not to get to snippy with readers, but to be honest, your use of the word "retard" displays an ignorance that can't be ignored, and makes me wonder how much of that ignorance spills over into the actual topics at hand.

[Purple Faithful]

ok, well, you argue it, but you don't seem to offer up proof. What team has improved their quarterback play and become a playoff contender by drafting a left tackle in the top 3? I don't think you'll find one. Probably the best/only modern example you can use would be the selection of Orlando Pace by the rams. He won a ring & the team improved dramatically after he was selected, but it wasn't for that coaching staff or quarterback, so i'd argue it was coinincidence even though he was a great LT. So, maybe you can use that selection to try to offer up some logic on why it makes sense. I still don't happen to see it, but i am ignorant, after all.

I think you see getting much more bang-for the buck in impact plays at the impact positions rather than the support positions. Offensive lines are only as good as their weakest link, so any defensive coordinator worthy of having the job would choose to attack some of the weaker links with blitzes & stunts, negating the selection of what might be viewed as a dominant left tackle. The Vikings do not have the option of moving Kalil around to follow clay mathews or julius peppers, so his selection will not more than likely influence the total number of sacks. You'd have to add a guard or two & a RT to greatly improve things. So, building through the offensive line might take 4-5 years, assuming no one busts, so that there is near equal talent everywhere whereas if I find the next Kevin Williams, i get to sack your QB until you do get it figured out. By the time that 4-5 years or more rolls around, top 3 pick Kalil will need a new deal & it's gonna hit the salary cap hard. Ponder will not develop behind a great offensive line as we do't have one & one or two picks this draft will not change that.

As for what you think a realist is in regards to Leslie Frazier & Rick Spielman drafting QB's, who cares? It doesn't make thier decisions valid. Here's an example of typical viking fan 2012 realist logic through my lens & why I pull my hair out:
"Jimmie Johnson drafts like a moron - he took Troy Aikman & Steve Walsh with back to back #1 overall selections. Jerry Jones drafts like a genius, though, he took Kalil's linemate I wanted the Vikings to pick, Troy Smith. A great offensive tackle."

So, I don't look at things & think "WWSD" as I'm not sure spielman deserves the job. I'd like him to start proving it with this selection & standing pat picking a LT does not fill me with confidence. When you pick in the top 3, I think you take a QB if you don't have one. If you do or there isn't one, you take the player that will destroy the other team's QB. (Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White) If the Vikings front office really doesn't believe there is a Von Miller or an Aldon Smith or a chris doleman or a keith millard or a kevin williams that can turn around our defense, i suppose we could look at DB or wr, but in that case, we should consider trading down. I really doubt there isn't an elite d-lineman or linebacker available & I'm sure viking fans wouldn't want to trade down & not get Alan Page. Oh, & my comment you found politically incorrect was addressed towards actual GM's that make picks like trent williams or troy smith or jason peters, not guys like you or brent that have fun trying to guess what an NFL GM might do & it was meant tongue-in-cheek.

[adammwarwas]

First off, "tongue-in-cheek" or not, the word retard in the manner in which you used it might be politically incorrect but I am not concerned with that. Instead, I was just pointing out that the casual use of the word in mixed company, with mixed backgrounds, and mixed family histories shows a certain lack of common sense that, as I stated, makes me question the validity of anything else you are trying to say. I don't care if you were calling me, Brett, Jim Ireland, Sammy Sosa, Big Bird, or the man on the moon a retard... the result is the same in my mind.

Also, there is a big difference between "WWSD" and "WSSD." I am simply pointing out that what Speilman WILL do is not draft a quarterback at #3. I am fine with people disagreeing with that, of course I am I do it all the time, as we all have our own opinions on what Speilman SHOULD do. But calling people names and putting blinders on of your own, well that just makes it appear like you don't understand the difference.

With that being said, this last post is more thought out and well represented than any of your previous ones on the topic, and I have to say I understand your point somewhat better as a result. I may not agree with you, but at least I understand you. Although, your "point" did alter quite a bit. You went from claiming that drafting a good left tackle in the first round somehow hindered a team's ability to play good football, to now challenging me to point out a top three left tackle that was able to turn things around for their team.

Top Three Left Tackles in last decade: Jason Smith (Rams), Jake Long (Dolphins), Joe Thomas (Browns), Robbert Gallery (Raiders).

That is a sample size of FOUR freaking guys to support your conclusion, theory, point... whatever you want to call it, that drafting a left tackle in the top three will somehow doom this team in such a manner that you will "swear off Viking football." I'm no statistician, at least not officially, but I'm pretty sure a sample size of FOUR (especially with a brand new set of rules under the new CBA in place) means that you shouldn't swear off Vikings football.

I will say that the Packers drafted first round offensive tackles in the first round of the last two Drafts. They won a Super Bowl in 2010 and had the league's best record in 2011. The Patriots drafted Solder in the first round this year, and despite having taken a tackle in the first round, somehow still managed to make it to the Super Bowl.

There are plenty of busts at the tackle position, just like EVERY position, that one could point out. But I do know this is a fact: Teams that selected good players to play the left tackle position are not worse off because of it. Teams that selected bad ones are.

Selections should only be position/need based to a certain extent because a team needs good players first and foremost. NFL Scouts would be fired for suggesting Kalil is not a top three prospect simply because Trent Williams stinks and the Dolphins and Browns haven't won a Super Bowl... each player is to be evaluated ontheir own merit. The only harm that can come from comparing prospects to current or past players is if those comparisons somehow turn into expectations. Players are human, and each human is different. Scouting 101.

[Purple Faithful]

Well, it's ok if you expand your search to top 5 or 10 tackles. I won't even call you out if you choose one who was taken at 11, for instance. I'm talking about taking an elite player at a support position at the top of the draft instead of at a playmaking position. There's only so many bluechippers of whatever you want to call them at the top of the draft. The Packers drafting a tackle late & playing him at right tackle or guard hardly was the piece that put them over the top. I think that honor goes to the likes of Raji & Matthews & rodgers. The packers have something to protect, so, it's fine if they want to take offensive lineman at 22 or 32. We're not picking at 32, but we are picking at 35, i think. I would love to take a tackle/guard prospect at 35. no problem in the world with that. Makes perfect sense to make your picks count when it's harder to ID talent. I happen to think taking a left tackle high in the draft is very poorly thought out based on the empirical evidence & is instead a bit of a cliche'. Why would it matter if there's a top 3 talent at punter available? or Kicker? or Long Snapper? Position matters. Offensive line is, among the starting 22, the least important to have elite talent at. Why? well, the evidence shows it & i think the reason the evidence shows it is an offensive line is only as good as it's weakest link. Defensive coordinators get paid lots of money to get pressure on opposing QB's. They will try to bring it where it will be effective. As a fan, of course, i really am unconcerned with locking my thoughts in on what spielman will do & think what matters is getting fans to wake up & voice a bit what the vikings should do. Do you think it is smart of a front office person to say who they will not select at 3? I do not think it is smart. So, if he means it that he will not select a QB at 3, i question not the conclusion as much as the intelligence to speak it. Can you imagine Bill Belichick doing that? oh, & i think scouting 101 would be you want to build the best possible team, not draft the best possible players or recognize the differences inherent in humanity or whatever you're trying to say. But I'm not gonna keep getting preached at on the proper use of retard, so take care.

[adammwarwas]

You too.

[B. Grant]

Purple Faithful says...
"Offensive line is, among the starting 22, the least important to have elite talent at."

Purple, you and I have a vast difference in our perceptions of the game of football. We have severely ignored that position in the draft and free agency in recent years, and 3-13 is the result. We can't asses Ponder until we give him time to actually look at a passing play in the standing position rather than on the run.

And a word to the wise. I have a severely mentally retarded brother, so the use of that term IS, as Adam points out, worse than politically incorrect. It is truly offensive and insensitive. (I must admit I bristled when I saw it in your post.) But I know you did not intend to insult anyone personally, so no ill will your way on this from me. Just know that it is a term used far too often by many people in our society. It will sincerely and seriously offend some people.

Live on!

[Malte]

I understand the philosphy with taking a tackle early hasn't helped any team in the last decade.
BUT with the talent we have at left tackle, and the rest of the Line we have to start upgrading.
I know you might beleive that a tackle is there to be taken in the 2nd round, I just don't think so. I think if we don't take a tackle early we will be left with Charlie Johnson again, and then we will se however (RG III in your opinion i guess) scramble around and trying to make something out of nothing.
I really REALLY don't get your idea with taking RG III at the 3rd spot if he is there. Why would you want another rookie QB, go out and play behind THAT O-line?
He will be knocked around and we will be no better this year than 2011.