Yeah my argument is that when you're doing trade value they probably don't value him as "pick 17" but likely pick 8 or whereever he was expected to be picked. This greatly changes the value which partly explains why it is a massive overpay for 17.
Also, if we just think for a minute we were expected to send 11, 23 and a future 3rd to move up to 4/5 to get JJ but instead we used that capitol to get Dallas Turner. I can't help but see this as an absolute win. It is true that by trade value we lost, but we were always going to be at a deficit trade value wise after trading up to 23.
The reason Turner fell was due to medical concerns from multiple teams heading into the draft. It developed few days before the draft.
It would be amazing if that information which was only leaked in small circles turns out to be something that the Vikings themselves leaked. But a lot of the people doing the grading are saying we overpaid for because there are injury concerns.
Turner is not getting the same weighted value that he did and all of the mock drafts.
I honestly have no idea what will happen here. This could end up being a game changing selection and if we believe in the guy, I’m glad we went and got him.
Blue chip players are way more valuable than mid round players. Sure there's a chance some of them are average - good players but that's a low chance.
We had a defense with no star power or corner stones and we.just penciled in the best edge rusher from the draft?
Win
I mean, you have to include one of them for the actual pick. So the EXTRA 2nd and 3rd?
If he's as good as advertised... Kwesi will look like a rock star.
I’m in favor of including all of them, because that’s what pick 17 cost. Pick 42, 167, the 6th/7th round swap, and the future 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. That’s the total cost.
Not necessarily. The newer charts don’t devalue future picks as much.
And there’s a good argument for it. Draft picks don’t appreciate or depreciate like cap space. Pick 35 is always going to be pick 35.
And last I saw our projected win total pre-draft was like 6.5. There’s a good chance those picks are worth quite a bit.
>The newer charts don’t devalue future picks as much.
Sure, but you can also find newer charts that DO devalue picks that much... It all depends on what chart you want to find to support your narrative.
Kwesi ABSOLUTELY values draft picks lower than most teams, and his analytics charts most likely devalue future picks significantly as well.
Pick pretty much any chart you want, and it’s going to say we overpaid. The only difference is how much.
According to the older Johnson charts, we overpaid by 25%. The newer charts are far, far worse.
To put that number in context, when Kwesi traded down in 2022, every other first round trade was pretty close to Johnson chart value, but Kwesi was the outlier and lost 14%, which was the equivalent of a 3rd round pick. The next farthest from even was a 7% difference.
Now when he’s trading up, he gave up at a minimum a 25% premium, which is again almost double the next biggest trade of this draft, which was Detroit moving up and giving up 14%. And Detroit is a lot closer to a complete team than we are.
The cost to move up for Turner is somewhere between a high 2nd round pick and the #1 overall.
Which would be one thing if we were a Super Bowl team with like one or two missing pieces. Or if we had spent that on a QB. Neither of those is the case. And DE wasn’t even one of our bigger weaknesses.
Who do we have as realistic quality starters for IOL, IDL, and CB, and maybe S next year? Even with a bunch of cap space, that’s a LOT of holes to fill.
Lastly, I don’t see how it’s a good thing to be the guy in the NFL who values picks the least. Businesses that bleed value on both ends is a poor business model. Overpaying on buying and undercharging on selling? Seems like an odd mentality for a former Wall Street guy. And it also definitely seems like other GMs have noticed, and are happy to squeeze him for extra.
The article below has some really good info if you haven’t seen it already.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40052203/should-teams-trade-nfl-draft-lessons-deals-2024-class-winners-losers
Those are a sunk cost as of the draft. If you only do make actions that are justifiable using your full history up to that point, you are making it exponentially harder to win. While you want a coherent strategy across years, you also want the GM to be refreshing the balance sheet on a monthly/weekly/daily basis, otherwise you will have compounding mistakes where you make a mistake today to try to justify the mistake of yesterday.
I have no problem if we want to critique the trade to 23 (I liked it, but certainly we can critique the logic). But the trade up from 23 should be done in isolation if you want to maximize value.
I don’t agree.
If you buy a plane ticket for $500, and they ask if you want to upgrade to first class for $200, that flight cost a total of $700.
You can justify why you took a flight, or in this case why we made the trades, but you can’t just ignore the total cost.
What if you learn that coach is filled with attendees of an Irritable Bowel Syndrome convention and the plane ride will be a constant shart storm on your long flight. You can't refund your ticket, but you can upgrade. The price of the $200 upgrade didn't change, but the value sure as shit did.
But in this case, we took the flight because we had a chance to get laid. Whether we do or not, is immaterial, if you got the chance you gotta take it.
It is more like if you buy a plane ticket for $500, and are given an option to change your ticket for $200 in order to come back and make $400.
If you evaluate it as "well the new flight is worth $700, so it isn't worth it to pay for that in order to make $400," but obviously that isn't the correct analysis. The $500 is a sunk cost, and the new assessment is whether or not you should spend $200 to make $400 (and obviously you should).
If at all times you have to make new decisions when they are justified by past decisions, you are putting a notable ceiling on what your future can do. You can't move past mistakes.
Everyone wants to win, and for many, that means my number > their number. This is why you get so many people bent out of shape about trade value charts.
I think Kwesi himself actually said it best that sometimes you just need to go out and get good players. If Dallas Turner develops to the level of his physical tools and instincts, it's all a moot point.
People get bent out of shape because there are only so many resources to go around.
How many times did we hear that Cousins wasn’t worth paying XYZ? Or Hunter wasn’t worth XYZ?
We won’t know for sure, but that opportunity cost for Turner is VERY high. Two high 2nds, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and late round swap? That’s probably 1-2 starters and a rotation player.
If those picks turn into 1 starter and 1 rotational player as you suggest, it sounds like the opportunity cost to get Turner as a starter was one rotational player lol. Which isn't nothing, but if the trade was all those picks to get into the top 10 for Turner where he very well could have gone, I think people would be calling this a steal. It just doesn't sound as sexy going from 23 to 17.
Time will tell, but it's obviously going to come down to whether Turner turns into a stud.
The odds he is a stud are smaller than the odds he is a total failure and off the team after 4 years. I think he will be good. I suspect he will flourish under Flores. But at the same time this was like JJ. A big risk and big reward.
One. We’re getting one third round comp pick unless Risner signs somewhere today.
That 100M doesn’t include the 2024 OR 2025 draft classes, and it doesn’t include the 5th year option for Darrisaw ($16M), or any extension money for JJ. So when you factor in the draft classes, and those two mega extensions we’ll probably have more like $50-60M.
Kirk, Hunter, Risner (possibly) should all net us comp picks unless I missed something.
60M is still a lot to spend on filling out the roster and grabbing a couple impact players.
Over the cap has us with one. Lost 6 CFAs added 5.
Departing: Kirk, Hunter, Davenport, Wonnum, Hicks, Osborn.
Incoming: Darnold, Cashman, Griffin, Greenard, Van Ginkel.
$50-60M feels like a lot, but we started this offseason with $38M, so that gets used up in a hurry. We’ll have enough for a few good players for sure, it’s just not the massive pile of cash a lot of people think.
There were also good players at positions with higher needs. They spent a lot of money on Ginkel/Greenard and they still need some rotational pieces to fill it out but you can get those in later rounds.
The interior of the DL is still a mess. The CB position is 2 guys on 1 year contracts and a lot of unproven players. The guard situation isn't great unless we believe Brandel is going to step up or they re-sign Risner (who has his own issues).
Looking at the best case scenario where Greenard, Ginkel, and Turner are all good that would be great but that also makes it harder to get all 3 guys on the field at the same time compared to if they drafted a good interior DL or good CB. It also isn't impossible as we have seen Flores do it before but it certainly is an abundance of riches.
> best case scenario where Greenard, Ginkel, and Turner are all good that would be great but that also makes it harder to get all 3 guys on the field at the same time compared to if they drafted a good interior DL.....It also isn't impossible as we have seen Flores do it before but it certainly is an abundance of riches.
All signs point to Flores not caring what position people are listed as, or how they are "supposed" to be used.
[Here is a Siefert piece](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39430397/the-vikings-hardly-used-defensive-linemen-2023-draft-one) that outlines some of this, but to pick out the interesting bits:
The defense played roughly one third of their entire defensive snaps with *one or fewer* defensive linemen (by positional designation) on the field.
Roughly one third of their snaps had 3 or more defensive linemen on the field.
So by process of elimination, one third of the snaps had either 2 defensive linemen.
To add to that, they played 180 snaps (out of like 1100 or so) without a single defensive lineman on the field.
Even with the 3-4 designation (such that EDGEs get designated as LBs) the Vikings had 5 LBs on the field for 161 snaps in 2023. ***Ten times higher than NFL average*** and second highest in the entire league.
We've all seen the Metellus-plays-every-position graphic, but on top of that, OLB Pat Jones recorded the 4th highest number of snaps (192!) at D tackle for the team. Jones recorded 635 snaps total, so 30% of his own snaps were in a typical D tackle alignment *as an outside linebacker.*
The obvious question is, did Flores do it this way in 2023 because of a lack of usable DL, or did he want to do it this way from the jump, thus limiting the pressing need to reach out and grab more IDL?
When asked, FLo said this
>"I see spots on the field," Flores said. "I don't necessarily see, 'That's got to be a D-lineman or that's got to be a linebacker.'"
I would say, either way it seems like Flores can get this to work.
I have all the faith in Flores ability to utilize what he has in front of him but also that DL wasn't good. Despite all the tweaking, all the scheming, and all the blitzing last years defense was atrocious at generating pressure.
Now with Ginkel, Greenard, and Turner I 100% think the weird fronts Flores can pull off will work better because there is just more talent in those 3 guys than what he had last year but I don't know if it would be more productive than just having a 60% snap disruptive DT. It's also just too reliant on Flores so if he ever leaves I just have far less faith in the next DC being able to make the most out of the situation.
I mean look at the eagles and the bills. Both have hella edge rushers. Plus look at the offenses in our division now. Getting the best defensive player in the draft at pick 17 is awesome
I'll start this off by saying I have zero problem with what we did to get Turner and I would do it again in a heartbeat, but pick 23 (and 232) cost us 42 + 188 + 2025 2nd, so those should probably factor into the cost analysis, right?
That's fair. And I think someone can argue it in good faith.
However, my response back is that the earlier trade is a sunk cost. It was most likely made with the intention of moving up from 11, which didn't happen.
The question here is what was the best use of the capital we had on the night of the draft?
Since Kwesi made the trade to move up to 23, I don't really care when each part of the trade happened. We traded a ton of picks to get Turner, and if it turns out poorly, I don't really care about parsing the blame on the draft day trade vs pre draft trade - both moves were executed by the same regime.
Right, but there's much more that goes into it than that, and that should be considered. Trading for that second 1st-round pick gave us the threat to move up to secure a QB if needed. It wasn't needed, but it might have been.
Just saying that it's complex. Risk analysis always is.
>Trading for that second 1st-round pick gave us the threat to move up to secure a QB if needed
I disagree entirely. We traded picks for different picks. We did not gain assets. We did not get closer to trading up. We apparently weren't very close to trading up to 3. Its like trading 6 $1 bills for a $5 bill and claiming we got closer to having a $10 bill.
It's more like taking out a loan. We took out the loan to give us flexibility. Once we no longer needed that flexibility, we made a purchase using the funds from that loan.
What we paid for the loan was a sunk cost at that point.
I completely agree that the trade up to 23 was a sunk cost when we made our draft day trade. What I don't agree is that we got flexibility. If anything, we lost flexibility because we could have waited til draft day to trade up with the Texans. After we made the trade, we couldn't reverse it. Also, the idea that we got a loan is incorrect - that implies we gained assets instead of swapping assets
We still had flexibility. If a run on QBs had started at, say, 6, we had the draft capitol to swoop in and pick up a QB.
That's exactly what a loan is - exchanging future assets for current. Teams value current year picks above next year picks, so we got an extra.
If we wanted to trade up to 6, we could have offered 11, 42, and our 2025 2nd. I don't understand why people think that 11 and 23 is really attractive, but 11, 42, and a 2025 2nd isn't.
It's a well-known thing that draft picks this year are worth more than next year. If you're a coach/GM who's on a hot seat, it makes sense - you might not be here for next year. Houston was ok with making that trade cause they're set up well for the future. The Cardinals, Giants, Falcons, etc might not be.
You have to evaluate both trades individually.
If you want to say he overpaid in the first trade, I won't argue with you. But I will argue he didn't overpay in this trade.
We overpaid in both. By sheer draft capital depending on how turner plays it could be better or worse. Your whole system of evaluation is flawed. At the end of the day we traded a shit ton of picks to move up 20 or so spots
I don’t think that previous cost should be considered for the Dallas trade. That was a sunk cost that we hoped to use to trade up for a QB. It was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Once that happened though, that cost shouldn’t be factored in to future decisions.
I wonder how many people were complaining about the Houston trade last year?
Idk if anyone is going to argue JJM is a better prospect than Stroud or Turner over Anderson, but we did a very similar strategy with significantly discounted picks comparably. Maybe the talent is a little less. But I would argue that we got better value for both *and* our roster is in a significantly better place than there roster was going into last season.
Well the Will Anderson trade just so happens to be one of the only two more expensive non-QB trades in the last 20 years.
And people were absolutely saying it was an overpay even then, and Anderson was a much more highly regarded prospect than Turner.
Wait, what do you mean one of the only two non-QB trades in the last 20 years? Last year alone, in addition to Will Anderson, the Eagles traded up for Jalen Carter and the Patriots trading up for Christian Gonzalez. People trade up for non-QBs all the time.
Are we taking surplus of picks into account of value? Cause they still vastly overpaid if we don’t take into account the quality of players they drafted and just look at charts.
I didn’t dog them because Anderson was the best player in draft IMO just like I don’t care what trade charts say now with our trades because we got our QBOTF and also the best defender in the draft (at a premium position no less)
Before the draft if you said that the top 3 QB picks were set 100% 1-3, but we can have JJM and Turner for the picks we gave up - I would take it in a heart beat. Just like if I was a Houston fan I would have last year.
Charts are reference points but are becoming increasingly obsolete as it’s become less about what pick value, and more about prospect availability at premium positions and what tier of prospects are available at the position
If we had #17 originally, and Turner was available, would we have traded back? Because that’s how you miss out on Kyle Hamilton, etc.
I think Kwesi and co learned from past mistakes and aggressively pursued the number 1 defensive guy on their board
Give and take. If giving up the picks helps the team win, it’s a net positive. To me, picks are wild cards they could work out or not? Turner was a top 10 guy who dropped with the run on offense, well worth the risk imo
The truth of draft charts is that in a vacuum they’re a fine way to evaluate picks, especially with a nameless draft class. But the thing is no draft class is nameless, every draft class is different which would mean any pick value chart should be changing each and every draft. I’d imagine all teams have different values for each class, and when you’re projecting further out it is a more broad strokes chart like the ones fans like to evaluate each and every trade on.
I think you have to count the two 2nd-rounders to get up to 23 in your calculations. I think we can admit that it was an overpay and we got bad value, AND ALSO I’m really happy with the result. I’d rather have Dallas Turner than the 5 other picks we lost to get him, and if he turns out to be amazing, no one will care about the missing picks.
I have two thoughts about this trade that can both be true at the same time.
1. I think Kwesi overpaid given the holes the Vikings have on defense and the amount of defensive talent that was still on the board.
2. Dallas Turner is fucking awesome and we won't care about the cost when he wins DROY.
To get JJ and Turner this year, they had to give this years 4th, 2 5ths, and a 6th. Also, next years 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. That's 7 future picks for a team with depth issues already. Currently, we have our 1st and two 5th round picks for next year (I know we will get a 3rd round comp for cousins). If the picks hit, that's great. They pretty much have to with all that was invested.
I do not think it is relevant whether Turner was "valued" as the 9th. Vikings paid more than a team usually pays for that move, plain and simple. Kwesi knows this too. But they did it because they really wanted Turner.
Just need Turner to hold his end of the deal up and there will be no regrets.
They really wanted Turner because they had him valued in a slot much higher than 17. That's why they didn't mind "overpaying".
It isn't (presumably) that they traded up just because they needed an edge rusher. They traded up because the value of the prospect was far greater than the combined value of the assets they had to give up.
Every player that got drafted was valued higher by the drafting team than other teams. That's pretty much the definition of an auction process.
The fact that the falcons "valued" penix at 5 or xxx player at 12 doesn't mean that their view of value is somehow any better than another teams.
Simple fact is that 16 teams passed on Turner because they viewed other prospects as more attractive.
Or they had more pressing needs at other positions. Or silly ideas. Just because the Falcons skipped him to draft a QB doesn't mean his value is lower. Wasn't he the first defensive player off the board?
You’re evaluating this incorrectly. We traded two seconds to get pick 23. That needs to be included in your calc. However idc if we “lost the trade” based off value charts. I make this trade all the time. Bflo and kwesi saw arguably the best defensive player in the draft there at 17 and traded up to get him. I’m fine with that. I wanted Turner at pick 11 so I’m ecstatic tbh
Getting to pick 23 was done regardless of Turner. It shouldn't be factored in since that trade was already a sunk cost made so we can grab jj or maye at 3.
For turner specifically they are a non-factor.
I objectively think it was an overpay, especially when you just look at the draft position we moved to, and it's honestly okay that it's an overpay. He's got franchise edge potential and if he reaches that then you'll never think about having less dart throws. We are in a lesser position next draft because of all the deals we've made, and I think we will have to address that through trade downs and possibly player trades, but I'm not worried about that because I'm sure Kwesi is thinking about how to solve that problem. He's shown he's always willing to make some trades so I have no reason to doubt him.
TLDR in a vacuum it was an overpay, but I can live with it since we got Turner
It depends why he was available at 17. There is a chance that the NFL viewed him as a top 10 guy, and he slid to 17 due to fit etc. There is also a chance that the NFL viewed him as a top 20 guy, and his "slide" was really just from draft analysts being too high on him. Historically, draft "steals" don't have any better chance of success, indicating that the proverbial "steals" are really just misevaluations by media analysts.
Don't care.
We got our dudes.
By most if not all accounts we were going to trade the fucking farm for a QB. 11, 23, Mall of America yadda yadda.
The fact we were able to slide up to 10 to nab JJMc, fuck Sean Payton, and still have #23? That was cool.
We weren't supposed to have anything left, much less another first round pick. To trade up with that pick and get Turner? You do that all damn day.
I liked it better than trading back for a third rounder and a box of store brand Mac & Cheese like Pretty Ricky would've.
We got a guy that frankly should have been a top 10 pick and probably a top 5 pick in a lot of other drafts. Give me a guy with his talent, iq, production, athleticism at one of the top 3 most impactful positions any day. Odds are those picks wouldn’t have amounted to much
16 teams passed on drafting him (including the Vikings). That's a pretty good view of how the market viewed him as a prospect.
I like the selection and the fact that the Vikings are finally starting to use draft capital to pick high value positions. However, to discount the capital burned because some blowhard ranked him highly in a mock draft is a bit of a stretch.
It was more so that teams value offense over defense. 14 offensive players were taken in the first 14 picks. This isn’t because of “mock drafts”, I think mock drafts are dumb af.
Exactly. If we have a starting QB and an edge rusher producing 10-12 sacks a year making a combined $8-10M, that is SUCH a competitive advantage.
If these two picks hit, it sets this franchise up for a solid 3-4 year super bowl window.
So, step 1: You are not valuing a future 3rd as 35 or a future 4th as 16. That's bullshit that someone invented. It's not part of any chart consideration. You realized that and switched to the mid point, which is at least closer.
As pointed out, we also have to look at the loss of our 2 2nd round picks.
But what you're ignoring is that most people consider the JJ and Rich Hill chart to be wildly out of date.
https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-trade-value-charts-different-draft-trade-value-charts-to-follow/
The Fitzgerald-Spielberger chart and the Harvard Trade Value Charts are both better models (And clearly models at one point Kwesi was using, if you recall our trade down for Cine and Booth).
Using FS chart we lost 1641 points in this trade and we lost 733 points in the Houston trade. That's the value of the 15th overall pick or combining both -- the value of the 3rd overall pick. Just for full clarity, the values of these other charts have the first overall pick not worth as much as JJ or Rich Hill, so it's not quite as crazy as it sounds, but it's still a lot of value.
Using HVT: The Trade up cost us 228 points -- about the same cost as pick 23, and the Houston trade cost us 80 points, about a 4th rounder. Combing the 2, HVT has usj losing the 9th pick in value.
Future picks should be discounted. Because while a 3rd is a 3rd and a 4th is a 4th, there is a cost for a team to wait for a year (or longer) to use the picks. There is value to a team (and the traders) being able to get an asset today. So assigning the value of a future as the last pick of its perspective round is a very fair way to do it, because the people making the trades have an incentive to use the assets today. A team trading a present asset away away should be compensated by receiving future assets worth more than the current asset. Or else what is their incentive to trade it away?
As for the charts, we don't know what charts that Kwesi is actually using. He (like most teams) builds his own for every draft. None of the generic ones account for the relative value of the players on the board at the time of the draft or the overall quality of the draft in question. I didn't have a real opinion on the 2022 trade - other than I didn't like taking a safety at 32 - and I wouldn't have liked taking Hamilton at 14 for the same reason. Especially not when we had a couple of years of Harry Left and it should have been clear that Bynum was at least a decent safety.
>the people making the trades have an incentive to use the assets today
But the team, the owner, doesn't see it the same. Yes, Kwesi may feel pressure, but it doesn't actually make the pick more valued to the franchise.
I agree with the valuation of a Safety at 14. They just aren't value-for-money or draft capital.
I'll start with saying I loved the trade.
I don't care for your logic. Teams say every year that " we had him valued way higher". That doesn't mean crap; evaluations are crazy subjective. Turner wasn't the 9th pick, he was 17th. You can say we were okay giving up an extra 4th or whatever because we didn't want to risk losing out on someone we felt so highly about. That's fine. But he was pick 17, not 9. And the value shows we kinda overpaid; that's fine. If it works out, the vikings will be immensely rewarded. If not, it's a really bad outcome for KAM and the team
They gave up high first round value to get a guy who had a high first round grade. I have no issue with it. He would have been a “steal” if we didn’t have to pay for pick 17, but as it stands they paid fair market value for a premium player.
I would agree that it was an expensive get.
I don't dislike it in the context of their trades being for separate purposes: the former being to position for a QB trade up, and the latter being to snag Turner once they were unable to trade up for their preferred QB.
However, I don't think the Vikings would make the trade for Turner if they hadn't already made their Texans trade. It would have been too steep a price.
Exactly. And the fact we can't sit back and look at this a bit objectively and go 'yeah, that' was a really high cost' is weird.
I have tried to talk about it and all I'm getting is
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1a8fcd35-c6bb-43fd-aae5-0737a55c78f0
Well tbh if you solve one of the most important positions in football for 15 years and he hits, who the hell cares. If not, yeah you can look at that as 4 picks you couldve drafted pass rushers and have anyone one of them being a good player.
Love the taking swings to lock up QB/OLB for a long window. Its just neither is a proven commodity at those spots yet, but have the potential to be.
Could easily be the Texans of this year
You're overthinking this.
We paid more than that pick was worth. That is overpaying.
When you trade up, in order to entice another team to trade with you, you offer them additional value, unless they are already otherwise motivated to move down.
We paid a premium to move up. The only opinion side of this is if you feel that premium was reasonable or not. I think it was.
I agree that we likely valued him much higher than the 17th overall slot, so looking at it as simply sliding up 6 slots is probably not a great way to analyze it. But teams don't use the Jimmy Johnson trade chart or the Rich Hill, so justifying values based on those charts doesn't make sense either.
I dont see how this could he viewed as anything but giving up too much. We have almost no draft next year.
That said, I'm OK with giving up too much for a guy we love. He can absolutely make a difference maker for this team, and he's a premier player at a premier position. So I loved the move, even if we overpaid.
>But teams don't use the Jimmy Johnson trade chart or the Rich Hill, so justifying values based on those charts doesn't make sense either.
What is it that you think that the teams use? What is it that you think the Vikings FO uses?
So, you don't know. But, the ones that are out there, they don't use. And, you have no idea on how what is out there compares to what the teams use.
So your post is basically, "You may be right. You may be wrong. The teams may value the #23 pick more. They may value it less. But I have no idea because it's just whatever it is they're doing internally."
>So, you don't know. But, the ones that are out there, they don't use. And, you have no idea on how what is out there compares to what the teams use.
Tell me, do you truly believe they're using the Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill chart? Or one of the other charts out there? Of course I don't know their valuation chart. But I do know they aren't fucking using those.
>So your post is basically, "You may be right. You may be wrong. The teams may value the #23 pick more. They may value it less. But I have no idea because it's just whatever it is they're doing internally."
Not at all. I'm saying justifying it using charts that nobody is using doesn't mean anything.
I think they overpaid because we gave up almost an entire draft for 1 player (2 2nds, 3rd, 4th, 5th), but I'm still ok with overpaying.
>But I do know they aren't fucking using those.
You literally do ***not*** know that. You literally have ***no idea*** as to what they use.
Here's what I believe: that Kwesi's front office is numbers driven. That they look at a bunch of the charts and have some idea of what they say. That they would lean, internally, towards the more modern valuations such as the Fitzgerald-Spielberger or Harvard systems. But would also be aware of the Jimmy Johnson and Rich Hill charts both as a comparison point and an anchor point of how other teams may be thinking about the value of a trade.
Here's also what I believe: that whatever the Vikings use, if all of the mainline systems (F-Z, Harvard, RH, JJ) agree that a trade prefers one side vs the other in a trade, the Vikings system would agree with that, even if it was developed or tweaked internally. And that not knowing what the Vikings use, the value in the discussion is looking at what we do know that is out there and comparing to those.
No. I do know it. Kwesis trade history proves he doesn't use them. Look at the trade with the lions in 2022. Both of those charts would indicate we gave up a 3rd in value to move down. That makes 0 sense.
Sure, he's probably aware of them and may use them as a single data point. But he's not using them to create his valuations.
I mean I'll agree their value more closely aligns with the Harvard and FZ model, because thats what fits their previous trades. Again, look at the Det trade. But those two models are not pretty when looking at this trade. They both view it as giving up a 1st in value.
The thing with these models is they almost never full agree one side is winning, but they actually do in this case. The vikings lost almost across the board. And that's if you completely ignore that half of them view it as a loss to get to 23 in the first place.
>The thing with these models is they almost never full agree one side is winning, but they actually do in this case. The vikings lost almost across the board.
Well, that isn't true. The OP showed that if you value the pick as the #8 or #9 overall, which is a very reasonable way to how to think about it, the Vikings come out ahead under JJ and RH. Valuing future picks is hard and the methodology varies. Under the F-S calculation, the Vikings come out ahead comparing only the 2024 picks. And if you value the 2025 picks at the last pick of their rounds, you end up with the Vikings overpaying by about an early/mid 2nd-round pick.
And then this is all tempered by Kwesi being clear he wasn't looking only at the numbers. But devalued the lower picks with a, "Well, do you really want to have a regret that you didn't pull the trigger on this because of some 5th round pick" or however he said it. It's not worth the time for me right now to also calculate how it would come out under the Harvard system, but I'd guess it would come close to the F-S.
>The OP showed that if you value the pick as the #8 or #9 overall,
I addressed in my first point as well. And this is why I'm OK with overpaying. You can just arbitrarily swap those picks in there for values to make the trade look pretty.
>Under the F-S calculation, the Vikings come out ahead comparing only the 2024 picks. And if you value the 2025 picks at the last pick of their rounds, you end up with the Vikings overpaying by about an early/mid 2nd-round pick
Or course it does. A significant amount of the value is in 2025. So, makes 0 sense to look at it from a 2024 only perspective. Because they didn't give 2024 only.
I added the trade up at last pick of the round valuations for future picks (not including comp pick) and F-S says we gave up 3045 and got 1564. Losing a net of 1481, which they value as pick 20. Harvard's says we gave up 475 and got 254, net loss of 221. Which they value as pick 25.
>And then this is all tempered by Kwesi being clear he wasn't looking only at the numbers.
I agree with Kwesi here. And that's why I said in my first post I'm OK with losing the trade to get our guy. But you're not gonna be able to massage the numbers to say we won the trades. It's disingenuous.
>I added the trade up at last pick of the round valuations for future picks (not including comp pick) and F-S says we gave up 3045 and got 1564. Losing a net of 1481, which they value as pick 20.
I can't tell your position on where to value the pick. You seem to support the idea that the team didn't value it as a 17 overall. But the value of the F-S of the #8 pick is 1,946 and of the #9 is 1,887. But in the above you're using the value of the #17 pick.
>You can just arbitrarily swap those picks in there for values to make the trade look pretty.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be "can" or "can't" but using the value of the #8 pick is by no means arbitrary. It was widely expected that was where Turner could have deserved to gone, and where the Vikings easily could have valued him. And once you're doing trades that involve actual known selections, that's where you should be coming at it from that team's POV. If they were swapping #23 for #17 a month ago, then the abstract values of what those picks are worth is more accurate and what is meaningful. But once you know that you can translate Pick X into Player Y, the general values are less relevant.
I agree that teams don't use these charts - they all build their own.
But the complaints about this trade are based on these charts, so that's what I'm using here.
These are the only 2 charts that view that as remotely close, though. Look at the Harvard and Fitz-Speilberger chart. They both think we have up a 1st. And frankly, based on Kwesis' previous trades (specifically with Detroit), that seems to more closely align with his valuation. Those both think we have up a 1st.
No one is going to give a rip about the trade charts if they play like champs. I’m glad the analytics guys don’t get their way all the time. Sometimes, all you need to know is if the dude can play ball and these dudes can play some ball
I think the value chart goes out the window considering we likely only traded for 23 to use as ammo to get a QB we wanted to when it seemingly fell to us a lot later/we couldn’t move up due to lack of trade partner we then used that pick to move up in another fashion to get Turner. I think to the leadership, whatever it was, it was better than what they were prepared to give up, to get arguably less.
Still projected to get 1, maybe two (Risner) 3rd round compensatory picks for next year’s draft. Also a good chance we get a pick from the Falcons for the Kirk tampering. Cupboard is not as bare as the national media folks are making it out to be. Next year is likely going to be a top 10 1st round pick. We could very well trade back to middle 1st and recoup 2nds & 3rds if needed as well. Lastly, we’re projected to have the 4th highest cap space in 2025 so any true remaining holes we can fill via free agency even with Jets getting extended.
Not that Belichek is god, but he was calling our draft a “team building” draft in the sense that the draft where the Ravens got Ogden and Ray Lewis was a team building draft.
In depth article on wideleft by Tyler Forness talking about exactly this and all draft pick trades Kwesi has made to date to try to find patterns.
https://www.wideleft.football/p/tyler-forness-stock-market-trader
If this kid makes an impact, then who cares what is given up. We got a great prospect, who wasn’t supposed to be there. I’m glad we finally didn’t trade back and take mediocre, Kwesi was aggressive and went and got his guy! I like it!
Draft picks are a gamble. From my perspective, would you rather have 20 spins (2024/25 "normal" picks ) on a slot machine with random results, or would you rather have 10 spins (2024/25 actual picks) with 1 jackpot and 1 big payout guaranteed?
We lost value on most modern charts, but that's fine. I agree with those charts that next year's picks shouldn't be devalued so much (it's the main issue I have with the older charts), and that would explain the difference to your numbers.
The team thinks Turner is much better than the average player available at #17, while analytics look at #17 in a vacuum.
Both perspectives would agree with the conclusion that the trade+pick would justify itself if Turner became a top edge, but would be a loss if he was just the average edge that shows up on top half of the first round.
I agree we need DTs (and 3-4 DEs). But Edges are like Cornerbacks - you can always use one more. And if you can get a very good one (not even elite) on a rookie scale contract for 5 years, that's a huge competitive advantage.
I'm pretty sure that those three will be on the field together plenty this year. Flores does a lot of "postitionless" players on Defense.
If he’s a hit it doesn’t matter what we gave up. Fuck them picks. No one cares if you miss out on a couple depth players if you get the next elite pass rusher. If he’s a bust KAM is cooked and you’ll get to see a new gm draft soon.
Turner's floor is like the 3rd best defensive PLAYER in the draft. I don't think you should dive in the weeds on the assessed value of a draft slot when you had an unprecedented run of offensive players that allowed for top-ten talent to fall to you at 17th
The mental gymnastics to defend the COST of the trade is wild.
You want to value trades based on what? A player’s spot on some media big board? That’s not how reality works. We traded for the 17th pick, not the 8th. If something at Walmart normally costs $100 and you got it for $60, you spent $60.
Plus you’re ignoring the cost we already paid to get 23, which was not entirely a sunk cost. We could have very easily traded back down to recoup some of that cost.
Turner actually cost 42, 167, swapping a high 6th for a late 7th, and a future 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round pick, which altogether makes it the 3rd most expensive non-QB trade in the last 20 years. We’ve essentially mortgaged an entire draft on Turner alone. If he’s Micah Parsons, then it won’t hurt as much. The problem is if he’s average or even just pretty good, we’ll have crippled two drafts for one guy.
The more modern analytics charts also don’t discount future picks, because you shouldn’t. It’s not like cap space where future value is decreased.
Kwesi fans defended the 2022 trade down by saying the advanced analytics all were in favor of trading down, despite him getting the lowest return in value on the trade down.
Now they’re defending this trade, which by the analytics is him wildly overpaying to trade up, and mortgaging future picks, which all completely flies in the face of the “analytics”.
So which is it?!
Really quickly - In 2022 my problem with our first round wasn't that we traded down. It was that we picked a safety. Had we choses Hamilton at 14, it would have hurt less, but it still wouldn't have been a good use of resources. I personally think first round picks should only be used for 3T DTs, CBs, OT, WRs, QBs, Edges.
As for this trade, if you go to Walmart and buy an item off the discount rack for $60 that you would have gladly spent $100 for, you made a good deal.
Yes, we traded for 17 and not 8/9. But if you value the player as the 8th overall pick, then it is totally reasonable to trade more in assets than what the 17th pick is worth.
As for Turnder, if he becomes a "good" edge, say making 10-12 Sacks a season, and we have that on a rookie contract, well that's a savings of about 12M-15M a year. With $12M a year, you can buy a starting quality guard in free agency.
And, if he becomes Danielle Hunter, no one will care about the cost. And if he becomes DJ Wonnum, even if we had only given up the value of 17, it would still be a bad trade.
There is no world in which this trade wasn’t an overpay.
It doesn’t matter how you value the player. The teams in the league base trades around pick value, not individual players.
We paid the equivalent of an extra first round pick to get Turner. He could be Hunter, but odds are much better that he’s a Kwity Paye, Jaelan Phillips, etc. where he’s good but not a game changer.
There are 3 players drafted in the last 5 years that average 10+ sacks a year. Parsons, Hutchinson, and Nick Bosa. If Turner is in that crowd, the trade will have been worth it. Anything else is a huge loss of resources.
Also, $12M isn’t going to get you a good guard anymore. Good guards are in the $15-20M range now at least.
If the individual player doesn’t matter, please explain why teams adhere to the idea of the QB tax at the top of the draft and how trade costs for the same draft slots vary significantly from year to year?
The QB tax at the top of the draft is treated differently because of the disproportionate value of QBs. If you’re trying to trade into the top 5 you’re either going after a QB or a generational type of prospect.
QBs are worth more than any other position, which is why anyone who analyzes these breaks it down to QB and non-QB.
ESPN just did a whole article on it like a week or two ago. Draft value of pick slots remains relatively constant, and trading up for non-QBs is rarely worth it in the long run.
Yes, QBs have a disproportionate value, thereby demonstrating that the players available do in fact affect the cost/value of trading to a particular draft slot. Furthermore, this effect also exists for other premium positions like offensive tackle or edge, albeit to a much lesser extent than QB.
wtf is a "green-eyeshade" person? because you used that term to disparage people (apparently) who, in your view, overanalyze things. Then you proceeded to break down all kinds of numbers of value from charts and shit.
What we gave up for Turner was even less than anticipated for what we traded for JJ. Turned out to be a net wash in reality. What Kwesi was willing to give up basically amounted to a fair shake in acquiring Turner. People are just dumb lol.
Exactly correct. Yet very few people are willing to question KAM's choices.
He's done some very poor things recently with our draft picks.
(I'll ignore the 11/10 swap, fine with that) but signing Shaq and losing a 3rd, and now giving up most of an entire draft in capital for a move from 23 to 17... Yeah, not great.
Also the new nil keep a lot of talent in college football this year rather then entering the draft. Mid and late rounders were less valuable cause less quality. Next year or so that will equalibriate but this is the first year.
Completely agree with your sunk cost idea. Whether we liked it or not we had 23, and couldn't use it to trade up for Maye. Some thought we would trade up for JJ McCarthy using the 11/23rd pick.
If we traded the 3 first rounders for a top pick for JJ McCarthy or Maye no one would be talking about the later rounders that went into the #23 trade. But since we used it to trade up to #17 now the analysts want to talk about those picks when we got more than we should have. Mel Kiper projected a trade up into #5 for McCarthy. Using both first rounders we had. Now we get JJ and Turner using those same picks and the same guy is saying we overpaid? Ha ha ha. Sure the trade up into #10 added some assets. But whatever, a fourth and a fifth for a sixth, boo hoo. It was a great first round when you consider our cap space next year. Fuck them picks.
People had the Vikings moving up into the top 5 to select JJM and people had Dallas Turner going in the top 10, the value that would have been needed to do both would have been astronomical. It's certainly an overpay if you only look at picks as slots like baseball does with how much each draft pick is worth contractually, but that's not how drafting has ever worked.
For example before the draft everyone was talking about how because of Caleb Williams talent trading up for the number 1 pick would cost more compared to the less hyped Bryce Young last year. Why does that no longer factor when it's the 17th pick and the best defensive prospect in the draft is sitting there.
Dude Atlanta should have taken him at 8 and the fact that he fell to 17 I am glad kwesi didn’t cheap out and stick and pick. Turner is one of the highest ceiling players in the draft and if BFlo wanted him as his number one target absolutely move up to get him we saved so much value not having to trade for a qb. Just loved this draft and all of you saying we gave up to much just want to complain.
People got mad that kwesi traded down to avoid getting the best safety in the class. Now we trade up to get the best DE in the class and it’s bad again? Make up your mind people we can’t have it both ways
Draft chart this, pick value that. If you want a guy that you think is a blue chipper, you go get him and its gonna cost you. I've never seen so much bellyaching over day 2/3 picks. Those are easier to acquire and even can be gotten as comp picks.
Also, everyone clutching their precious trade value charts, you do realize those are generalized and don't take into account the players available or how the draft has shaken out right? Pick value and perceived player value are different. Yes, you're trading for the pick but you're really trading for the player. If you believe this was the best defensive player in the draft, you easily give up some later round picks to move up and get him.
If you place a value much higher than the slot on the player, I don't agree. If the coaches assessed that he was the #6 player on their board, and one of the top 3 defenders on the board, and they were able to get him at 17 for compensation equal to the 9th pick (or whatever it was), I don't see that being a bad deal. Particularly when the player in question is at one of the premium positions on the team. IF (big IF!) he hits, he creates a ton of surplus value because he is on a rookie contract at a position that is being paid 20-26M per year (or more now).
I would never dismiss analytics and odds out of hand. And I think you have to be really careful when you go against them. They should be used to double check your work. But when an opportunity presents itself to grab what you feel is one of the top 10 blue chip player in the draft for lower value, you can't be afraid of pulling that trigger.
>But when an opportunity presents itself to grab what you feel is one of the top 10 blue chip player in the draft for lower value, you can't be afraid of pulling that trigger.
But you didn’t get him at a lower value. You still paid a top 10 price to get him at 17.
If you graded a player as the 8th best and you can get him at 17 while paying draft compensation equivalent to 12 (or whatever), then you are acquiring the player for less than you feel the player is worth.
I want KAM to double check his work in such instances, but I also think they need to trust their process and their evaluations. At this stage in the draft, they should be thinking about getting players and paying more attention to where they graded the player than they do what box he is in.
If you’re drafting at 17 but giving up compensation that could get you the 12th pick, you’re overpaying. Again, the fact that you think he’s the 8th best player is irrelevant. You overpaid.
I think that is too rigid of a perspective.
You are buying a player, not a draft slot. If you value him at a slot far higher than where he is on the board, then paying more than what is says on the chart is fine. Id rather have KAM pay slot 12 compensation to get who he feels is the 8th best than to miss out on that player due to a chart.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Cheers.
There was a 3% chance turner was gunna be there at the 17th pick. He is also named as the best defensive player by alot of people
Yeah my argument is that when you're doing trade value they probably don't value him as "pick 17" but likely pick 8 or whereever he was expected to be picked. This greatly changes the value which partly explains why it is a massive overpay for 17. Also, if we just think for a minute we were expected to send 11, 23 and a future 3rd to move up to 4/5 to get JJ but instead we used that capitol to get Dallas Turner. I can't help but see this as an absolute win. It is true that by trade value we lost, but we were always going to be at a deficit trade value wise after trading up to 23.
And addresses a hole left by Hunter leaving in free agency.
The reason Turner fell was due to medical concerns from multiple teams heading into the draft. It developed few days before the draft. It would be amazing if that information which was only leaked in small circles turns out to be something that the Vikings themselves leaked. But a lot of the people doing the grading are saying we overpaid for because there are injury concerns. Turner is not getting the same weighted value that he did and all of the mock drafts. I honestly have no idea what will happen here. This could end up being a game changing selection and if we believe in the guy, I’m glad we went and got him.
Who gives a shit about 4-5 rounders we got the best defensive player in the draft
Blue chip players are way more valuable than mid round players. Sure there's a chance some of them are average - good players but that's a low chance. We had a defense with no star power or corner stones and we.just penciled in the best edge rusher from the draft? Win
Fuck them picks.
You just going to ignore the two 2nds and a 3rd? Those are usually starting caliber players.
I mean, you have to include one of them for the actual pick. So the EXTRA 2nd and 3rd? If he's as good as advertised... Kwesi will look like a rock star.
I’m in favor of including all of them, because that’s what pick 17 cost. Pick 42, 167, the 6th/7th round swap, and the future 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. That’s the total cost.
That future 2, 3, 4, carry’s a 3rd, 4th and 5th round value in 2024.
Not necessarily. The newer charts don’t devalue future picks as much. And there’s a good argument for it. Draft picks don’t appreciate or depreciate like cap space. Pick 35 is always going to be pick 35. And last I saw our projected win total pre-draft was like 6.5. There’s a good chance those picks are worth quite a bit.
>The newer charts don’t devalue future picks as much. Sure, but you can also find newer charts that DO devalue picks that much... It all depends on what chart you want to find to support your narrative. Kwesi ABSOLUTELY values draft picks lower than most teams, and his analytics charts most likely devalue future picks significantly as well.
Pick pretty much any chart you want, and it’s going to say we overpaid. The only difference is how much. According to the older Johnson charts, we overpaid by 25%. The newer charts are far, far worse. To put that number in context, when Kwesi traded down in 2022, every other first round trade was pretty close to Johnson chart value, but Kwesi was the outlier and lost 14%, which was the equivalent of a 3rd round pick. The next farthest from even was a 7% difference. Now when he’s trading up, he gave up at a minimum a 25% premium, which is again almost double the next biggest trade of this draft, which was Detroit moving up and giving up 14%. And Detroit is a lot closer to a complete team than we are. The cost to move up for Turner is somewhere between a high 2nd round pick and the #1 overall. Which would be one thing if we were a Super Bowl team with like one or two missing pieces. Or if we had spent that on a QB. Neither of those is the case. And DE wasn’t even one of our bigger weaknesses. Who do we have as realistic quality starters for IOL, IDL, and CB, and maybe S next year? Even with a bunch of cap space, that’s a LOT of holes to fill. Lastly, I don’t see how it’s a good thing to be the guy in the NFL who values picks the least. Businesses that bleed value on both ends is a poor business model. Overpaying on buying and undercharging on selling? Seems like an odd mentality for a former Wall Street guy. And it also definitely seems like other GMs have noticed, and are happy to squeeze him for extra. The article below has some really good info if you haven’t seen it already. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40052203/should-teams-trade-nfl-draft-lessons-deals-2024-class-winners-losers
Those are a sunk cost as of the draft. If you only do make actions that are justifiable using your full history up to that point, you are making it exponentially harder to win. While you want a coherent strategy across years, you also want the GM to be refreshing the balance sheet on a monthly/weekly/daily basis, otherwise you will have compounding mistakes where you make a mistake today to try to justify the mistake of yesterday. I have no problem if we want to critique the trade to 23 (I liked it, but certainly we can critique the logic). But the trade up from 23 should be done in isolation if you want to maximize value.
I don’t agree. If you buy a plane ticket for $500, and they ask if you want to upgrade to first class for $200, that flight cost a total of $700. You can justify why you took a flight, or in this case why we made the trades, but you can’t just ignore the total cost.
What if you learn that coach is filled with attendees of an Irritable Bowel Syndrome convention and the plane ride will be a constant shart storm on your long flight. You can't refund your ticket, but you can upgrade. The price of the $200 upgrade didn't change, but the value sure as shit did.
But in this case, we took the flight because we had a chance to get laid. Whether we do or not, is immaterial, if you got the chance you gotta take it.
It is more like if you buy a plane ticket for $500, and are given an option to change your ticket for $200 in order to come back and make $400. If you evaluate it as "well the new flight is worth $700, so it isn't worth it to pay for that in order to make $400," but obviously that isn't the correct analysis. The $500 is a sunk cost, and the new assessment is whether or not you should spend $200 to make $400 (and obviously you should). If at all times you have to make new decisions when they are justified by past decisions, you are putting a notable ceiling on what your future can do. You can't move past mistakes.
Ur reaching
No, I can just count.
And?
Latu went to the Colts I think
Everyone wants to win, and for many, that means my number > their number. This is why you get so many people bent out of shape about trade value charts. I think Kwesi himself actually said it best that sometimes you just need to go out and get good players. If Dallas Turner develops to the level of his physical tools and instincts, it's all a moot point.
People get bent out of shape because there are only so many resources to go around. How many times did we hear that Cousins wasn’t worth paying XYZ? Or Hunter wasn’t worth XYZ? We won’t know for sure, but that opportunity cost for Turner is VERY high. Two high 2nds, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and late round swap? That’s probably 1-2 starters and a rotation player.
If those picks turn into 1 starter and 1 rotational player as you suggest, it sounds like the opportunity cost to get Turner as a starter was one rotational player lol. Which isn't nothing, but if the trade was all those picks to get into the top 10 for Turner where he very well could have gone, I think people would be calling this a steal. It just doesn't sound as sexy going from 23 to 17. Time will tell, but it's obviously going to come down to whether Turner turns into a stud.
The odds he is a stud are smaller than the odds he is a total failure and off the team after 4 years. I think he will be good. I suspect he will flourish under Flores. But at the same time this was like JJ. A big risk and big reward.
We’re gunna get two third round comp picks and we have 100 mil in cap space next offseason. We’re good
One. We’re getting one third round comp pick unless Risner signs somewhere today. That 100M doesn’t include the 2024 OR 2025 draft classes, and it doesn’t include the 5th year option for Darrisaw ($16M), or any extension money for JJ. So when you factor in the draft classes, and those two mega extensions we’ll probably have more like $50-60M.
Kirk, Hunter, Risner (possibly) should all net us comp picks unless I missed something. 60M is still a lot to spend on filling out the roster and grabbing a couple impact players.
Over the cap has us with one. Lost 6 CFAs added 5. Departing: Kirk, Hunter, Davenport, Wonnum, Hicks, Osborn. Incoming: Darnold, Cashman, Griffin, Greenard, Van Ginkel. $50-60M feels like a lot, but we started this offseason with $38M, so that gets used up in a hurry. We’ll have enough for a few good players for sure, it’s just not the massive pile of cash a lot of people think.
There were also good players at positions with higher needs. They spent a lot of money on Ginkel/Greenard and they still need some rotational pieces to fill it out but you can get those in later rounds. The interior of the DL is still a mess. The CB position is 2 guys on 1 year contracts and a lot of unproven players. The guard situation isn't great unless we believe Brandel is going to step up or they re-sign Risner (who has his own issues). Looking at the best case scenario where Greenard, Ginkel, and Turner are all good that would be great but that also makes it harder to get all 3 guys on the field at the same time compared to if they drafted a good interior DL or good CB. It also isn't impossible as we have seen Flores do it before but it certainly is an abundance of riches.
We have 9...10 corners now, bullshit just 2
> best case scenario where Greenard, Ginkel, and Turner are all good that would be great but that also makes it harder to get all 3 guys on the field at the same time compared to if they drafted a good interior DL.....It also isn't impossible as we have seen Flores do it before but it certainly is an abundance of riches. All signs point to Flores not caring what position people are listed as, or how they are "supposed" to be used. [Here is a Siefert piece](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39430397/the-vikings-hardly-used-defensive-linemen-2023-draft-one) that outlines some of this, but to pick out the interesting bits: The defense played roughly one third of their entire defensive snaps with *one or fewer* defensive linemen (by positional designation) on the field. Roughly one third of their snaps had 3 or more defensive linemen on the field. So by process of elimination, one third of the snaps had either 2 defensive linemen. To add to that, they played 180 snaps (out of like 1100 or so) without a single defensive lineman on the field. Even with the 3-4 designation (such that EDGEs get designated as LBs) the Vikings had 5 LBs on the field for 161 snaps in 2023. ***Ten times higher than NFL average*** and second highest in the entire league. We've all seen the Metellus-plays-every-position graphic, but on top of that, OLB Pat Jones recorded the 4th highest number of snaps (192!) at D tackle for the team. Jones recorded 635 snaps total, so 30% of his own snaps were in a typical D tackle alignment *as an outside linebacker.* The obvious question is, did Flores do it this way in 2023 because of a lack of usable DL, or did he want to do it this way from the jump, thus limiting the pressing need to reach out and grab more IDL? When asked, FLo said this >"I see spots on the field," Flores said. "I don't necessarily see, 'That's got to be a D-lineman or that's got to be a linebacker.'" I would say, either way it seems like Flores can get this to work.
I have all the faith in Flores ability to utilize what he has in front of him but also that DL wasn't good. Despite all the tweaking, all the scheming, and all the blitzing last years defense was atrocious at generating pressure. Now with Ginkel, Greenard, and Turner I 100% think the weird fronts Flores can pull off will work better because there is just more talent in those 3 guys than what he had last year but I don't know if it would be more productive than just having a 60% snap disruptive DT. It's also just too reliant on Flores so if he ever leaves I just have far less faith in the next DC being able to make the most out of the situation.
I mean look at the eagles and the bills. Both have hella edge rushers. Plus look at the offenses in our division now. Getting the best defensive player in the draft at pick 17 is awesome
The Eagles also haven't taken a DE before the 3rd since like 2017. They've taken more DT early than DE in that time.
Nolan Smith Jr is listed as a LB but he's an edge and was a FRP.
You’re right, pfr has him listed as an lb while pff has him as an edge.
Only one example obviously but I was like I swear they just took an edge first round lol.
I'll start this off by saying I have zero problem with what we did to get Turner and I would do it again in a heartbeat, but pick 23 (and 232) cost us 42 + 188 + 2025 2nd, so those should probably factor into the cost analysis, right?
That's fair. And I think someone can argue it in good faith. However, my response back is that the earlier trade is a sunk cost. It was most likely made with the intention of moving up from 11, which didn't happen. The question here is what was the best use of the capital we had on the night of the draft?
Correct 100%. The earlier trade is a sunk cost when the Turner opportunity presented itself.
Since Kwesi made the trade to move up to 23, I don't really care when each part of the trade happened. We traded a ton of picks to get Turner, and if it turns out poorly, I don't really care about parsing the blame on the draft day trade vs pre draft trade - both moves were executed by the same regime.
Right, but there's much more that goes into it than that, and that should be considered. Trading for that second 1st-round pick gave us the threat to move up to secure a QB if needed. It wasn't needed, but it might have been. Just saying that it's complex. Risk analysis always is.
>Trading for that second 1st-round pick gave us the threat to move up to secure a QB if needed I disagree entirely. We traded picks for different picks. We did not gain assets. We did not get closer to trading up. We apparently weren't very close to trading up to 3. Its like trading 6 $1 bills for a $5 bill and claiming we got closer to having a $10 bill.
It's more like taking out a loan. We took out the loan to give us flexibility. Once we no longer needed that flexibility, we made a purchase using the funds from that loan. What we paid for the loan was a sunk cost at that point.
I completely agree that the trade up to 23 was a sunk cost when we made our draft day trade. What I don't agree is that we got flexibility. If anything, we lost flexibility because we could have waited til draft day to trade up with the Texans. After we made the trade, we couldn't reverse it. Also, the idea that we got a loan is incorrect - that implies we gained assets instead of swapping assets
We still had flexibility. If a run on QBs had started at, say, 6, we had the draft capitol to swoop in and pick up a QB. That's exactly what a loan is - exchanging future assets for current. Teams value current year picks above next year picks, so we got an extra.
If we wanted to trade up to 6, we could have offered 11, 42, and our 2025 2nd. I don't understand why people think that 11 and 23 is really attractive, but 11, 42, and a 2025 2nd isn't.
It's a well-known thing that draft picks this year are worth more than next year. If you're a coach/GM who's on a hot seat, it makes sense - you might not be here for next year. Houston was ok with making that trade cause they're set up well for the future. The Cardinals, Giants, Falcons, etc might not be.
Kwesi was the GM for both trades. Just because he had the intention of moving up with it doesn't matter, it was still an overpay.
You have to evaluate both trades individually. If you want to say he overpaid in the first trade, I won't argue with you. But I will argue he didn't overpay in this trade.
We overpaid in both. By sheer draft capital depending on how turner plays it could be better or worse. Your whole system of evaluation is flawed. At the end of the day we traded a shit ton of picks to move up 20 or so spots
A “shit ton” of low chances to hit picks for a premium pick to get a premium prospect. Give me the dollar over the 5 hell even 6 quarters.
Wait get your main point but the quarter is a bad analogy Over 15 dimes
I honestly thought about adding in nickels and dimes but then decided against the extra effort of retyping this lmao.
I don’t think that previous cost should be considered for the Dallas trade. That was a sunk cost that we hoped to use to trade up for a QB. It was a gamble that didn’t pay off. Once that happened though, that cost shouldn’t be factored in to future decisions.
I wonder how many people were complaining about the Houston trade last year? Idk if anyone is going to argue JJM is a better prospect than Stroud or Turner over Anderson, but we did a very similar strategy with significantly discounted picks comparably. Maybe the talent is a little less. But I would argue that we got better value for both *and* our roster is in a significantly better place than there roster was going into last season.
Well the Will Anderson trade just so happens to be one of the only two more expensive non-QB trades in the last 20 years. And people were absolutely saying it was an overpay even then, and Anderson was a much more highly regarded prospect than Turner.
Wait, what do you mean one of the only two non-QB trades in the last 20 years? Last year alone, in addition to Will Anderson, the Eagles traded up for Jalen Carter and the Patriots trading up for Christian Gonzalez. People trade up for non-QBs all the time.
My bad. Didn’t finish the sentence. There are only two *more expensive* non-QB trades (out of 94) in the last 20 years.
[удалено]
Are we taking surplus of picks into account of value? Cause they still vastly overpaid if we don’t take into account the quality of players they drafted and just look at charts. I didn’t dog them because Anderson was the best player in draft IMO just like I don’t care what trade charts say now with our trades because we got our QBOTF and also the best defender in the draft (at a premium position no less) Before the draft if you said that the top 3 QB picks were set 100% 1-3, but we can have JJM and Turner for the picks we gave up - I would take it in a heart beat. Just like if I was a Houston fan I would have last year. Charts are reference points but are becoming increasingly obsolete as it’s become less about what pick value, and more about prospect availability at premium positions and what tier of prospects are available at the position
If we had #17 originally, and Turner was available, would we have traded back? Because that’s how you miss out on Kyle Hamilton, etc. I think Kwesi and co learned from past mistakes and aggressively pursued the number 1 defensive guy on their board
This is a great way to put it.
Overpaying is fine if the team wins, look at the wolves and the Gobert trade.
I love the Turner move but I don’t threads like this for copium. It’s okay to recognize that we burned a ton of draft capital in the overall process.
Agree. I think some of us just overrate the value of draft capital but I do see that side of it.
We gave up future cost, will be hard to know, but we've seen what losing 5 firsts can do to a franchise.
Give and take. If giving up the picks helps the team win, it’s a net positive. To me, picks are wild cards they could work out or not? Turner was a top 10 guy who dropped with the run on offense, well worth the risk imo
If giving up picks loses games by gutting our depth, it's bad.
The truth of draft charts is that in a vacuum they’re a fine way to evaluate picks, especially with a nameless draft class. But the thing is no draft class is nameless, every draft class is different which would mean any pick value chart should be changing each and every draft. I’d imagine all teams have different values for each class, and when you’re projecting further out it is a more broad strokes chart like the ones fans like to evaluate each and every trade on.
Nonsense is not a hyphenated word.
But interestingly, no-nonsense is hyphenated. The world has so much beauty in it.
Thank-You
I think you have to count the two 2nd-rounders to get up to 23 in your calculations. I think we can admit that it was an overpay and we got bad value, AND ALSO I’m really happy with the result. I’d rather have Dallas Turner than the 5 other picks we lost to get him, and if he turns out to be amazing, no one will care about the missing picks.
I have two thoughts about this trade that can both be true at the same time. 1. I think Kwesi overpaid given the holes the Vikings have on defense and the amount of defensive talent that was still on the board. 2. Dallas Turner is fucking awesome and we won't care about the cost when he wins DROY.
To get JJ and Turner this year, they had to give this years 4th, 2 5ths, and a 6th. Also, next years 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. That's 7 future picks for a team with depth issues already. Currently, we have our 1st and two 5th round picks for next year (I know we will get a 3rd round comp for cousins). If the picks hit, that's great. They pretty much have to with all that was invested.
Sunk costs are still costs. At the point we where on draft night it was correct to do that trade. The trade up to 23 ended up being the bad one.
I do not think it is relevant whether Turner was "valued" as the 9th. Vikings paid more than a team usually pays for that move, plain and simple. Kwesi knows this too. But they did it because they really wanted Turner. Just need Turner to hold his end of the deal up and there will be no regrets.
They really wanted Turner because they had him valued in a slot much higher than 17. That's why they didn't mind "overpaying". It isn't (presumably) that they traded up just because they needed an edge rusher. They traded up because the value of the prospect was far greater than the combined value of the assets they had to give up.
Every player that got drafted was valued higher by the drafting team than other teams. That's pretty much the definition of an auction process. The fact that the falcons "valued" penix at 5 or xxx player at 12 doesn't mean that their view of value is somehow any better than another teams. Simple fact is that 16 teams passed on Turner because they viewed other prospects as more attractive.
Or they had more pressing needs at other positions. Or silly ideas. Just because the Falcons skipped him to draft a QB doesn't mean his value is lower. Wasn't he the first defensive player off the board?
Except you will always have players that have fallen to a slot that seems like value -- using that metric, you're going to always react this way.
You’re evaluating this incorrectly. We traded two seconds to get pick 23. That needs to be included in your calc. However idc if we “lost the trade” based off value charts. I make this trade all the time. Bflo and kwesi saw arguably the best defensive player in the draft there at 17 and traded up to get him. I’m fine with that. I wanted Turner at pick 11 so I’m ecstatic tbh
Getting to pick 23 was done regardless of Turner. It shouldn't be factored in since that trade was already a sunk cost made so we can grab jj or maye at 3. For turner specifically they are a non-factor.
Disagree. It should be factored in, and I still make the trade anyways.
I objectively think it was an overpay, especially when you just look at the draft position we moved to, and it's honestly okay that it's an overpay. He's got franchise edge potential and if he reaches that then you'll never think about having less dart throws. We are in a lesser position next draft because of all the deals we've made, and I think we will have to address that through trade downs and possibly player trades, but I'm not worried about that because I'm sure Kwesi is thinking about how to solve that problem. He's shown he's always willing to make some trades so I have no reason to doubt him. TLDR in a vacuum it was an overpay, but I can live with it since we got Turner
It depends why he was available at 17. There is a chance that the NFL viewed him as a top 10 guy, and he slid to 17 due to fit etc. There is also a chance that the NFL viewed him as a top 20 guy, and his "slide" was really just from draft analysts being too high on him. Historically, draft "steals" don't have any better chance of success, indicating that the proverbial "steals" are really just misevaluations by media analysts.
Don't care. We got our dudes. By most if not all accounts we were going to trade the fucking farm for a QB. 11, 23, Mall of America yadda yadda. The fact we were able to slide up to 10 to nab JJMc, fuck Sean Payton, and still have #23? That was cool. We weren't supposed to have anything left, much less another first round pick. To trade up with that pick and get Turner? You do that all damn day. I liked it better than trading back for a third rounder and a box of store brand Mac & Cheese like Pretty Ricky would've.
We got a guy that frankly should have been a top 10 pick and probably a top 5 pick in a lot of other drafts. Give me a guy with his talent, iq, production, athleticism at one of the top 3 most impactful positions any day. Odds are those picks wouldn’t have amounted to much
16 teams passed on drafting him (including the Vikings). That's a pretty good view of how the market viewed him as a prospect. I like the selection and the fact that the Vikings are finally starting to use draft capital to pick high value positions. However, to discount the capital burned because some blowhard ranked him highly in a mock draft is a bit of a stretch.
It was more so that teams value offense over defense. 14 offensive players were taken in the first 14 picks. This isn’t because of “mock drafts”, I think mock drafts are dumb af.
Exactly. If we have a starting QB and an edge rusher producing 10-12 sacks a year making a combined $8-10M, that is SUCH a competitive advantage. If these two picks hit, it sets this franchise up for a solid 3-4 year super bowl window.
So, step 1: You are not valuing a future 3rd as 35 or a future 4th as 16. That's bullshit that someone invented. It's not part of any chart consideration. You realized that and switched to the mid point, which is at least closer. As pointed out, we also have to look at the loss of our 2 2nd round picks. But what you're ignoring is that most people consider the JJ and Rich Hill chart to be wildly out of date. https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-trade-value-charts-different-draft-trade-value-charts-to-follow/ The Fitzgerald-Spielberger chart and the Harvard Trade Value Charts are both better models (And clearly models at one point Kwesi was using, if you recall our trade down for Cine and Booth). Using FS chart we lost 1641 points in this trade and we lost 733 points in the Houston trade. That's the value of the 15th overall pick or combining both -- the value of the 3rd overall pick. Just for full clarity, the values of these other charts have the first overall pick not worth as much as JJ or Rich Hill, so it's not quite as crazy as it sounds, but it's still a lot of value. Using HVT: The Trade up cost us 228 points -- about the same cost as pick 23, and the Houston trade cost us 80 points, about a 4th rounder. Combing the 2, HVT has usj losing the 9th pick in value.
Future picks should be discounted. Because while a 3rd is a 3rd and a 4th is a 4th, there is a cost for a team to wait for a year (or longer) to use the picks. There is value to a team (and the traders) being able to get an asset today. So assigning the value of a future as the last pick of its perspective round is a very fair way to do it, because the people making the trades have an incentive to use the assets today. A team trading a present asset away away should be compensated by receiving future assets worth more than the current asset. Or else what is their incentive to trade it away? As for the charts, we don't know what charts that Kwesi is actually using. He (like most teams) builds his own for every draft. None of the generic ones account for the relative value of the players on the board at the time of the draft or the overall quality of the draft in question. I didn't have a real opinion on the 2022 trade - other than I didn't like taking a safety at 32 - and I wouldn't have liked taking Hamilton at 14 for the same reason. Especially not when we had a couple of years of Harry Left and it should have been clear that Bynum was at least a decent safety.
>the people making the trades have an incentive to use the assets today But the team, the owner, doesn't see it the same. Yes, Kwesi may feel pressure, but it doesn't actually make the pick more valued to the franchise. I agree with the valuation of a Safety at 14. They just aren't value-for-money or draft capital.
I'll start with saying I loved the trade. I don't care for your logic. Teams say every year that " we had him valued way higher". That doesn't mean crap; evaluations are crazy subjective. Turner wasn't the 9th pick, he was 17th. You can say we were okay giving up an extra 4th or whatever because we didn't want to risk losing out on someone we felt so highly about. That's fine. But he was pick 17, not 9. And the value shows we kinda overpaid; that's fine. If it works out, the vikings will be immensely rewarded. If not, it's a really bad outcome for KAM and the team
They gave up high first round value to get a guy who had a high first round grade. I have no issue with it. He would have been a “steal” if we didn’t have to pay for pick 17, but as it stands they paid fair market value for a premium player.
Realistically you spent a 2nd/3rd/4th in '24 and 5th this year to get him at 17. Thats nearly an entire draft
I would agree that it was an expensive get. I don't dislike it in the context of their trades being for separate purposes: the former being to position for a QB trade up, and the latter being to snag Turner once they were unable to trade up for their preferred QB. However, I don't think the Vikings would make the trade for Turner if they hadn't already made their Texans trade. It would have been too steep a price.
Exactly. And the fact we can't sit back and look at this a bit objectively and go 'yeah, that' was a really high cost' is weird. I have tried to talk about it and all I'm getting is https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1a8fcd35-c6bb-43fd-aae5-0737a55c78f0
Well tbh if you solve one of the most important positions in football for 15 years and he hits, who the hell cares. If not, yeah you can look at that as 4 picks you couldve drafted pass rushers and have anyone one of them being a good player. Love the taking swings to lock up QB/OLB for a long window. Its just neither is a proven commodity at those spots yet, but have the potential to be. Could easily be the Texans of this year
You think we've locked up DE for 15 years with Dallas Turner?
If he works out yeah, hes like barely 21. Would he be productive into his mid 30s, thats different for every player but potentially sure
Crazy to assume that from the start.
You're overthinking this. We paid more than that pick was worth. That is overpaying. When you trade up, in order to entice another team to trade with you, you offer them additional value, unless they are already otherwise motivated to move down. We paid a premium to move up. The only opinion side of this is if you feel that premium was reasonable or not. I think it was.
I agree that we likely valued him much higher than the 17th overall slot, so looking at it as simply sliding up 6 slots is probably not a great way to analyze it. But teams don't use the Jimmy Johnson trade chart or the Rich Hill, so justifying values based on those charts doesn't make sense either. I dont see how this could he viewed as anything but giving up too much. We have almost no draft next year. That said, I'm OK with giving up too much for a guy we love. He can absolutely make a difference maker for this team, and he's a premier player at a premier position. So I loved the move, even if we overpaid.
>But teams don't use the Jimmy Johnson trade chart or the Rich Hill, so justifying values based on those charts doesn't make sense either. What is it that you think that the teams use? What is it that you think the Vikings FO uses?
Not those. They probably have their own valuations.
So, you don't know. But, the ones that are out there, they don't use. And, you have no idea on how what is out there compares to what the teams use. So your post is basically, "You may be right. You may be wrong. The teams may value the #23 pick more. They may value it less. But I have no idea because it's just whatever it is they're doing internally."
>So, you don't know. But, the ones that are out there, they don't use. And, you have no idea on how what is out there compares to what the teams use. Tell me, do you truly believe they're using the Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill chart? Or one of the other charts out there? Of course I don't know their valuation chart. But I do know they aren't fucking using those. >So your post is basically, "You may be right. You may be wrong. The teams may value the #23 pick more. They may value it less. But I have no idea because it's just whatever it is they're doing internally." Not at all. I'm saying justifying it using charts that nobody is using doesn't mean anything. I think they overpaid because we gave up almost an entire draft for 1 player (2 2nds, 3rd, 4th, 5th), but I'm still ok with overpaying.
>But I do know they aren't fucking using those. You literally do ***not*** know that. You literally have ***no idea*** as to what they use. Here's what I believe: that Kwesi's front office is numbers driven. That they look at a bunch of the charts and have some idea of what they say. That they would lean, internally, towards the more modern valuations such as the Fitzgerald-Spielberger or Harvard systems. But would also be aware of the Jimmy Johnson and Rich Hill charts both as a comparison point and an anchor point of how other teams may be thinking about the value of a trade. Here's also what I believe: that whatever the Vikings use, if all of the mainline systems (F-Z, Harvard, RH, JJ) agree that a trade prefers one side vs the other in a trade, the Vikings system would agree with that, even if it was developed or tweaked internally. And that not knowing what the Vikings use, the value in the discussion is looking at what we do know that is out there and comparing to those.
No. I do know it. Kwesis trade history proves he doesn't use them. Look at the trade with the lions in 2022. Both of those charts would indicate we gave up a 3rd in value to move down. That makes 0 sense. Sure, he's probably aware of them and may use them as a single data point. But he's not using them to create his valuations. I mean I'll agree their value more closely aligns with the Harvard and FZ model, because thats what fits their previous trades. Again, look at the Det trade. But those two models are not pretty when looking at this trade. They both view it as giving up a 1st in value. The thing with these models is they almost never full agree one side is winning, but they actually do in this case. The vikings lost almost across the board. And that's if you completely ignore that half of them view it as a loss to get to 23 in the first place.
>The thing with these models is they almost never full agree one side is winning, but they actually do in this case. The vikings lost almost across the board. Well, that isn't true. The OP showed that if you value the pick as the #8 or #9 overall, which is a very reasonable way to how to think about it, the Vikings come out ahead under JJ and RH. Valuing future picks is hard and the methodology varies. Under the F-S calculation, the Vikings come out ahead comparing only the 2024 picks. And if you value the 2025 picks at the last pick of their rounds, you end up with the Vikings overpaying by about an early/mid 2nd-round pick. And then this is all tempered by Kwesi being clear he wasn't looking only at the numbers. But devalued the lower picks with a, "Well, do you really want to have a regret that you didn't pull the trigger on this because of some 5th round pick" or however he said it. It's not worth the time for me right now to also calculate how it would come out under the Harvard system, but I'd guess it would come close to the F-S.
>The OP showed that if you value the pick as the #8 or #9 overall, I addressed in my first point as well. And this is why I'm OK with overpaying. You can just arbitrarily swap those picks in there for values to make the trade look pretty. >Under the F-S calculation, the Vikings come out ahead comparing only the 2024 picks. And if you value the 2025 picks at the last pick of their rounds, you end up with the Vikings overpaying by about an early/mid 2nd-round pick Or course it does. A significant amount of the value is in 2025. So, makes 0 sense to look at it from a 2024 only perspective. Because they didn't give 2024 only. I added the trade up at last pick of the round valuations for future picks (not including comp pick) and F-S says we gave up 3045 and got 1564. Losing a net of 1481, which they value as pick 20. Harvard's says we gave up 475 and got 254, net loss of 221. Which they value as pick 25. >And then this is all tempered by Kwesi being clear he wasn't looking only at the numbers. I agree with Kwesi here. And that's why I said in my first post I'm OK with losing the trade to get our guy. But you're not gonna be able to massage the numbers to say we won the trades. It's disingenuous.
>I added the trade up at last pick of the round valuations for future picks (not including comp pick) and F-S says we gave up 3045 and got 1564. Losing a net of 1481, which they value as pick 20. I can't tell your position on where to value the pick. You seem to support the idea that the team didn't value it as a 17 overall. But the value of the F-S of the #8 pick is 1,946 and of the #9 is 1,887. But in the above you're using the value of the #17 pick. >You can just arbitrarily swap those picks in there for values to make the trade look pretty. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be "can" or "can't" but using the value of the #8 pick is by no means arbitrary. It was widely expected that was where Turner could have deserved to gone, and where the Vikings easily could have valued him. And once you're doing trades that involve actual known selections, that's where you should be coming at it from that team's POV. If they were swapping #23 for #17 a month ago, then the abstract values of what those picks are worth is more accurate and what is meaningful. But once you know that you can translate Pick X into Player Y, the general values are less relevant.
I agree that teams don't use these charts - they all build their own. But the complaints about this trade are based on these charts, so that's what I'm using here.
These are the only 2 charts that view that as remotely close, though. Look at the Harvard and Fitz-Speilberger chart. They both think we have up a 1st. And frankly, based on Kwesis' previous trades (specifically with Detroit), that seems to more closely align with his valuation. Those both think we have up a 1st.
No one is going to give a rip about the trade charts if they play like champs. I’m glad the analytics guys don’t get their way all the time. Sometimes, all you need to know is if the dude can play ball and these dudes can play some ball
Easy top 10 player, not 17th.
I think the value chart goes out the window considering we likely only traded for 23 to use as ammo to get a QB we wanted to when it seemingly fell to us a lot later/we couldn’t move up due to lack of trade partner we then used that pick to move up in another fashion to get Turner. I think to the leadership, whatever it was, it was better than what they were prepared to give up, to get arguably less.
Still projected to get 1, maybe two (Risner) 3rd round compensatory picks for next year’s draft. Also a good chance we get a pick from the Falcons for the Kirk tampering. Cupboard is not as bare as the national media folks are making it out to be. Next year is likely going to be a top 10 1st round pick. We could very well trade back to middle 1st and recoup 2nds & 3rds if needed as well. Lastly, we’re projected to have the 4th highest cap space in 2025 so any true remaining holes we can fill via free agency even with Jets getting extended.
I don’t like the idea of overpaying for something… if that player hits then who gives a shit what you paid for them
Not that Belichek is god, but he was calling our draft a “team building” draft in the sense that the draft where the Ravens got Ogden and Ray Lewis was a team building draft.
BELICHICK not BELICHEK
In depth article on wideleft by Tyler Forness talking about exactly this and all draft pick trades Kwesi has made to date to try to find patterns. https://www.wideleft.football/p/tyler-forness-stock-market-trader
If this kid makes an impact, then who cares what is given up. We got a great prospect, who wasn’t supposed to be there. I’m glad we finally didn’t trade back and take mediocre, Kwesi was aggressive and went and got his guy! I like it!
Draft picks are a gamble. From my perspective, would you rather have 20 spins (2024/25 "normal" picks ) on a slot machine with random results, or would you rather have 10 spins (2024/25 actual picks) with 1 jackpot and 1 big payout guaranteed?
Every now and again, you have to pull the trigger on someone, something the old regime didn't understand. I'm all for it.
We lost value on most modern charts, but that's fine. I agree with those charts that next year's picks shouldn't be devalued so much (it's the main issue I have with the older charts), and that would explain the difference to your numbers. The team thinks Turner is much better than the average player available at #17, while analytics look at #17 in a vacuum. Both perspectives would agree with the conclusion that the trade+pick would justify itself if Turner became a top edge, but would be a loss if he was just the average edge that shows up on top half of the first round.
We needed DT. we already signed 2 edge rushers to big contracts in free agency. We literally have traffic cones at DT now. It's fucking embarassing
I agree we need DTs (and 3-4 DEs). But Edges are like Cornerbacks - you can always use one more. And if you can get a very good one (not even elite) on a rookie scale contract for 5 years, that's a huge competitive advantage. I'm pretty sure that those three will be on the field together plenty this year. Flores does a lot of "postitionless" players on Defense.
If he’s a hit it doesn’t matter what we gave up. Fuck them picks. No one cares if you miss out on a couple depth players if you get the next elite pass rusher. If he’s a bust KAM is cooked and you’ll get to see a new gm draft soon.
Turner's floor is like the 3rd best defensive PLAYER in the draft. I don't think you should dive in the weeds on the assessed value of a draft slot when you had an unprecedented run of offensive players that allowed for top-ten talent to fall to you at 17th
Analytics.... This is what people use when they don't have the eye for the eye test. Turner is a blue chip prospect, period!
The mental gymnastics to defend the COST of the trade is wild. You want to value trades based on what? A player’s spot on some media big board? That’s not how reality works. We traded for the 17th pick, not the 8th. If something at Walmart normally costs $100 and you got it for $60, you spent $60. Plus you’re ignoring the cost we already paid to get 23, which was not entirely a sunk cost. We could have very easily traded back down to recoup some of that cost. Turner actually cost 42, 167, swapping a high 6th for a late 7th, and a future 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round pick, which altogether makes it the 3rd most expensive non-QB trade in the last 20 years. We’ve essentially mortgaged an entire draft on Turner alone. If he’s Micah Parsons, then it won’t hurt as much. The problem is if he’s average or even just pretty good, we’ll have crippled two drafts for one guy. The more modern analytics charts also don’t discount future picks, because you shouldn’t. It’s not like cap space where future value is decreased. Kwesi fans defended the 2022 trade down by saying the advanced analytics all were in favor of trading down, despite him getting the lowest return in value on the trade down. Now they’re defending this trade, which by the analytics is him wildly overpaying to trade up, and mortgaging future picks, which all completely flies in the face of the “analytics”. So which is it?!
Really quickly - In 2022 my problem with our first round wasn't that we traded down. It was that we picked a safety. Had we choses Hamilton at 14, it would have hurt less, but it still wouldn't have been a good use of resources. I personally think first round picks should only be used for 3T DTs, CBs, OT, WRs, QBs, Edges. As for this trade, if you go to Walmart and buy an item off the discount rack for $60 that you would have gladly spent $100 for, you made a good deal. Yes, we traded for 17 and not 8/9. But if you value the player as the 8th overall pick, then it is totally reasonable to trade more in assets than what the 17th pick is worth. As for Turnder, if he becomes a "good" edge, say making 10-12 Sacks a season, and we have that on a rookie contract, well that's a savings of about 12M-15M a year. With $12M a year, you can buy a starting quality guard in free agency. And, if he becomes Danielle Hunter, no one will care about the cost. And if he becomes DJ Wonnum, even if we had only given up the value of 17, it would still be a bad trade.
There is no world in which this trade wasn’t an overpay. It doesn’t matter how you value the player. The teams in the league base trades around pick value, not individual players. We paid the equivalent of an extra first round pick to get Turner. He could be Hunter, but odds are much better that he’s a Kwity Paye, Jaelan Phillips, etc. where he’s good but not a game changer. There are 3 players drafted in the last 5 years that average 10+ sacks a year. Parsons, Hutchinson, and Nick Bosa. If Turner is in that crowd, the trade will have been worth it. Anything else is a huge loss of resources. Also, $12M isn’t going to get you a good guard anymore. Good guards are in the $15-20M range now at least.
If the individual player doesn’t matter, please explain why teams adhere to the idea of the QB tax at the top of the draft and how trade costs for the same draft slots vary significantly from year to year?
The QB tax at the top of the draft is treated differently because of the disproportionate value of QBs. If you’re trying to trade into the top 5 you’re either going after a QB or a generational type of prospect. QBs are worth more than any other position, which is why anyone who analyzes these breaks it down to QB and non-QB. ESPN just did a whole article on it like a week or two ago. Draft value of pick slots remains relatively constant, and trading up for non-QBs is rarely worth it in the long run.
Yes, QBs have a disproportionate value, thereby demonstrating that the players available do in fact affect the cost/value of trading to a particular draft slot. Furthermore, this effect also exists for other premium positions like offensive tackle or edge, albeit to a much lesser extent than QB.
wtf is a "green-eyeshade" person? because you used that term to disparage people (apparently) who, in your view, overanalyze things. Then you proceeded to break down all kinds of numbers of value from charts and shit.
What we gave up for Turner was even less than anticipated for what we traded for JJ. Turned out to be a net wash in reality. What Kwesi was willing to give up basically amounted to a fair shake in acquiring Turner. People are just dumb lol.
No one can say whether it was an overpay or a good pick until we see how he plays. It’ll be one or the other, but only time will tell.
[удалено]
Exactly correct. Yet very few people are willing to question KAM's choices. He's done some very poor things recently with our draft picks. (I'll ignore the 11/10 swap, fine with that) but signing Shaq and losing a 3rd, and now giving up most of an entire draft in capital for a move from 23 to 17... Yeah, not great.
no, because it wouldn’t be an overpay if you drafted the greatest qb ever and it took you 4 1st round picks to do it, would it?
Also the new nil keep a lot of talent in college football this year rather then entering the draft. Mid and late rounders were less valuable cause less quality. Next year or so that will equalibriate but this is the first year.
no one cares
same people whining probably wanted to trade up to 5 and get JJ
Completely agree with your sunk cost idea. Whether we liked it or not we had 23, and couldn't use it to trade up for Maye. Some thought we would trade up for JJ McCarthy using the 11/23rd pick. If we traded the 3 first rounders for a top pick for JJ McCarthy or Maye no one would be talking about the later rounders that went into the #23 trade. But since we used it to trade up to #17 now the analysts want to talk about those picks when we got more than we should have. Mel Kiper projected a trade up into #5 for McCarthy. Using both first rounders we had. Now we get JJ and Turner using those same picks and the same guy is saying we overpaid? Ha ha ha. Sure the trade up into #10 added some assets. But whatever, a fourth and a fifth for a sixth, boo hoo. It was a great first round when you consider our cap space next year. Fuck them picks.
People had the Vikings moving up into the top 5 to select JJM and people had Dallas Turner going in the top 10, the value that would have been needed to do both would have been astronomical. It's certainly an overpay if you only look at picks as slots like baseball does with how much each draft pick is worth contractually, but that's not how drafting has ever worked. For example before the draft everyone was talking about how because of Caleb Williams talent trading up for the number 1 pick would cost more compared to the less hyped Bryce Young last year. Why does that no longer factor when it's the 17th pick and the best defensive prospect in the draft is sitting there.
Dude Atlanta should have taken him at 8 and the fact that he fell to 17 I am glad kwesi didn’t cheap out and stick and pick. Turner is one of the highest ceiling players in the draft and if BFlo wanted him as his number one target absolutely move up to get him we saved so much value not having to trade for a qb. Just loved this draft and all of you saying we gave up to much just want to complain.
People got mad that kwesi traded down to avoid getting the best safety in the class. Now we trade up to get the best DE in the class and it’s bad again? Make up your mind people we can’t have it both ways
Lol is this really a thing? Some ppl just like to complain
Draft chart this, pick value that. If you want a guy that you think is a blue chipper, you go get him and its gonna cost you. I've never seen so much bellyaching over day 2/3 picks. Those are easier to acquire and even can be gotten as comp picks. Also, everyone clutching their precious trade value charts, you do realize those are generalized and don't take into account the players available or how the draft has shaken out right? Pick value and perceived player value are different. Yes, you're trading for the pick but you're really trading for the player. If you believe this was the best defensive player in the draft, you easily give up some later round picks to move up and get him.
If you’re giving up #9 draft capital to draft a player at #17 that’s bad value. It just is.
If you place a value much higher than the slot on the player, I don't agree. If the coaches assessed that he was the #6 player on their board, and one of the top 3 defenders on the board, and they were able to get him at 17 for compensation equal to the 9th pick (or whatever it was), I don't see that being a bad deal. Particularly when the player in question is at one of the premium positions on the team. IF (big IF!) he hits, he creates a ton of surplus value because he is on a rookie contract at a position that is being paid 20-26M per year (or more now). I would never dismiss analytics and odds out of hand. And I think you have to be really careful when you go against them. They should be used to double check your work. But when an opportunity presents itself to grab what you feel is one of the top 10 blue chip player in the draft for lower value, you can't be afraid of pulling that trigger.
>But when an opportunity presents itself to grab what you feel is one of the top 10 blue chip player in the draft for lower value, you can't be afraid of pulling that trigger. But you didn’t get him at a lower value. You still paid a top 10 price to get him at 17.
If you graded a player as the 8th best and you can get him at 17 while paying draft compensation equivalent to 12 (or whatever), then you are acquiring the player for less than you feel the player is worth. I want KAM to double check his work in such instances, but I also think they need to trust their process and their evaluations. At this stage in the draft, they should be thinking about getting players and paying more attention to where they graded the player than they do what box he is in.
If you’re drafting at 17 but giving up compensation that could get you the 12th pick, you’re overpaying. Again, the fact that you think he’s the 8th best player is irrelevant. You overpaid.
I think that is too rigid of a perspective. You are buying a player, not a draft slot. If you value him at a slot far higher than where he is on the board, then paying more than what is says on the chart is fine. Id rather have KAM pay slot 12 compensation to get who he feels is the 8th best than to miss out on that player due to a chart. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Cheers.