DavidAOlson
Posts: 18932
Joined: 8/2/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Karl Juhnke quote:
ORIGINAL: DavidAOlson quote:
ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen Another chart, #12 = 1200 with the return at 1430. Edit - we gave up 440 more which would be 1640 if we gave up the 2nd. Something doesn't sound right. Can't say I'm a fan of the trade, but... weirdly, although it's a loss on Rich Hill's Chart, it's a win on PFF's and F-S. Ignore Jimmy Johnson's, which everyone knows is nuts. https://twitter.com/PFF_Brad/status/1519851311642157056 Maybe in their mock drafts, the Vikes liked the selection of players that showed up in the 30's. Like some players in positions of need often fell. So they felt they could squeeze out more value. This is the part people don’t account for. All the draft trade tools are just that. Tools. They are not the final word. They provide a baseline that you then need to apply to your draft board and come with some sort of integrated decision. I have one conclusion: The Vikings weren't super high on Kyle Hamilton. Because if they had him in the top 6, say, they would have just drafted him. If you think he's actually around 12, and you don't want a top WR, the trade down makes a lot of sense. Because nobody else left was a plausible steal. OTOH, I'm not liking the run at CB. But it looks like the Vikes might be able to pick up very good value at LB, or Edge. Or maybe C Linderbaum. Anyway, still some shot at a player ranked in the teens. So 32/34 might be BPA from the teens + CB reach.
_____________________________
I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it. --- Alice
|