Thread: Three Players The Vikings Should Target in FA

Damn fine post Marty. Your conclusion may be correct but unfortunately there is a flaw in your methodology.

First and foremost, you are judging drafting success based on how many drafted players remain on a roster.
A much better indication of drafting success would be how those drafted performed on the field. That would be tedious to track and compare.

You see, your comparison to New England instantly runs into the basic problem of math.

From your example I see the Vikings drafted 38 players and the Pats drafted 58.
Vikes kept 30 and the Pats kept 31.

The conclusion that jumps out at me is the fact the Vikes reach for draft picks and free agents that cost draft picks as compared to the Pats.
This basic mathematical fact gives the Pats 50% more draft picks to evaluate and select from.
Is it any wonder why they find young guys to plug into their system while teams like the Vikings are relying on free agent plug ins and band aids that more often than not, don't work out.

I don't think our drafting is too bad compared to our free agent aquisition and trades.

Evans,Kennedy,Shepherd, oh hell the list goes on and on.

We have done well with Hutch and Allen but at a high price. But I think the Vikings are far worse at free agent aquisition than they are at drafting.
But they need to improve both.

GM anyone?

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1100245

Damn fine post Marty. Your conclusion may be correct but unfortunately there is a flaw in your methodology.

First and foremost, you are judging drafting success based on how many drafted players remain on a roster.
A much better indication of drafting success would be how those drafted performed on the field. That would be tedious to track and compare.

You see, your comparison to New England instantly runs into the basic problem of math.

From your example I see the Vikings drafted 38 players and the Pats drafted 58.
Vikes kept 30 and the Pats kept 31.

The conclusion that jumps out at me is the fact the Vikes reach for draft picks and free agents that cost draft picks as compared to the Pats.
This basic mathematical fact gives the Pats 50% more draft picks to evaluate and select from.
Is it any wonder why they find young guys to plug into their system while teams like the Vikings are relying on free agent plug ins and band aids that more often than not, don't work out.

I don't think our drafting is too bad compared to our free agent aquisition and trades.

Evans,Kennedy,Shepherd, oh hell the list goes on and on.

We done well with Hutch and Allen but at a high price. But I think the Vikings are far worse at free agent aquisition than they are at drafting.
But they need to improve both.

GM anyone?

Well put.

Just moved you up a few "ROWS" in the ol' spreadsheet.

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1100236

Bumping this for my good friend bleed. :P

You obviously have never met the smarmy little Canucklehead.

=Z=

Originally Posted by "Zeus" #1100293

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1100236

Bumping this for my good friend bleed. :P

You obviously have never met the smarmy little Canucklehead.

=Z=

You're one of a handful here to have experienced that privilege.

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1100294

Originally Posted by "Zeus" #1100293

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1100236

Bumping this for my good friend bleed. :P

You obviously have never met the smarmy little Canucklehead.

You're one of a handful here to have experienced that privilege.

Yes. I'm forever tainted.

=Z=

Originally Posted by "Zeus" #1100296

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1100294

Originally Posted by "Zeus" #1100293

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1100236

Bumping this for my good friend bleed. :P

You obviously have never met the smarmy little Canucklehead.

You're one of a handful here to have experienced that privilege.

Yes. I'm forever tainted.

=Z=

what'd you say about taints?

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1100247

Originally Posted by "jargomcfargo" #1100245

Damn fine post Marty. Your conclusion may be correct but unfortunately there is a flaw in your methodology.

First and foremost, you are judging drafting success based on how many drafted players remain on a roster.
A much better indication of drafting success would be how those drafted performed on the field. That would be tedious to track and compare.

You see, your comparison to New England instantly runs into the basic problem of math.

From your example I see the Vikings drafted 38 players and the Pats drafted 58.
Vikes kept 30 and the Pats kept 31.

The conclusion that jumps out at me is the fact the Vikes reach for draft picks and free agents that cost draft picks as compared to the Pats.
This basic mathematical fact gives the Pats 50% more draft picks to evaluate and select from.
Is it any wonder why they find young guys to plug into their system while teams like the Vikings are relying on free agent plug ins and band aids that more often than not, don't work out.

I don't think our drafting is too bad compared to our free agent aquisition and trades.

Evans,Kennedy,Shepherd, oh hell the list goes on and on.

We done well with Hutch and Allen but at a high price. But I think the Vikings are far worse at free agent aquisition than they are at drafting.
But they need to improve both.

GM anyone?

Well put.

Just moved you up a few "ROWS" in the ol' spreadsheet.

+2