If Green believes in the system, trade down

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Steinbach went in the 2nd round, so if we'd have drafted him, we would have "reached". Barnett was actually considered a mistake by many "experts" on draft day who didn't think he could play MLB.

Negatives: Does not have great size or big frame. Has to be playing against air or gets engulfed. Takes bad angles at times. Slow to shed blocks and plays better in space. Gets walled off and sealed. Will downshift when changing directions.

Summary: Strong safety/outside linebacker tweener with the frame of a safety, though with added weight looks more like a linebacker. Although he's no Adam Archuleta, he might have been better suited to play safety at the next level before adding weight.

* Player biographies are provided by Pro Football Weekly.

From ESPN's grades:

Boom or bust: You hate to say it about anyone's first round, but since Barnett is such a late-bloomer, you have to view him with a jaundiced eye until he demonstrates that he is the real deal.
Grade: C- |

I don't think Bailey is all that good either, I don't think he'd have played in front of either Fisher or Thompson as a rookie, Detroit just had nobody else to play at that spot. He had a nice year but nothing special yet.

The jury is out on Johnson and Pace but of your list only Steinbach is clearly better right now and we could have gotten him 14-15 picks later since Cincy did.

I still think Pace will be a player, I'm not sure yet about Johnson his hands concern me.

A player is not a reach if he is a 10 year nfl starter. I think Pace and Johnson were reaches cause they have sucked. If Pace had 10 sacks then he was not a reach.

You cannot wait a round to take a player cause he might not be there. You dont get a draft pick every 14 spots you only get one every 32 spots.

Taking bad players and saying its okay cause they were rated there is a cop out. You have to do reasearch and see who is good. I would rather have a 10 year starter at LB and G by picking them early then picking 2 busts right where they should have been picked.

It doesn't matter what Kiper thinks or espn thinks or professional nfl scouts and GMs think. All those people thought Leaf and Mandrich were great picks.

The point is what do you think. When you read the breakdowns what do you think. Some guys do make the right evaluations. I have a pretty good record for example. DG has great record. You have to have the ability to sniff out who is a good player and who is not.

I read all the articles on Johnson the Vikes needed a WR I wrote no way should we take this guy. I wrote Pace was a bad pick. I wanted the Vikes to take Q or Calico.
I wanted Suggs.

There were GMs and scouts and nfl draft geeks and media people saying Suggs would suck and others were saying he would do great. No one is right all the time but some people are right more often then not.

Bryant for example has had 2 years of playing. Williams one year on a lousy defense gets 10 sacks. Good pick bad pick.

If Graves was a good GM he would have known Barnett would be good and was not a project. Good GMs know that. They don't go by what Kiper says or espn magazine says.
Oh its okay if your GM makes bad picks cause espn had the guy pegged as good. Cop out.


Another cop out he played as well as other WRs taken or DEs taken.
Again BS accepting average won't get it done. The guys you draft should play better not as good or worse. Pace didn't play better then Suggs.

Call up Bal and try and trade Pace and Johnson for Suggs and see what they say. You gave up a great player for an average one other teams bad picks don't make up for it.

If K Williams get 2 sacks this year and the other DTs drafted also get 2 sacks that doesn't make it okay.
You draft a guy #1 he better be getting 10 sacks it doesn't matter what other teams drafted DTs do.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
I dont think that a rookie DE having 3-6 sacks in his first year is extreme either. In fact I would say that might be a good number to build on.

However for a rookie DE playing out of position, on a D-Line with no talent, for a coahcing staff with no talent, and who was kinda thrown into the mix after an injury, I think he had At Least an average season.

I dunno. Before the injury, KVB had 3 sacks as a rookie playing every down, and I think he sucks!

Pace's performance as a rookie was unacceptable. Anyone who watched the games could tell that he created no pressure on the QB nor significantly disrupted the opposition running game.

I hope Pace turns it around, but I think that you have to admit, LV, that if Pace was on a mission to prove to the fans that he was worthy of his draft position--as he said during the preseason--he failed pretty miserably. 8 to 10 sacks should be the goal for Pace's coaches for 2004. That would go a long way to helping this team.

 

[JeffGollin]

I dont think that a rookie DE having 3-6 sacks in his first year is extreme either. In fact I would say that might be a good number to build on.
It might be "a good number to build on", but it's too low a standard to shoot for (and accept) from a first round pass rusher.

You could say that first year production from most of our Round 1 - 3 draft picks in past years were "good numbers to build on", but when the dust settled, we'd typically come out lower than .500.

When are we going to stop rationalizing?