***2024 Draft Talk and Analysis - A Trade Already!*** (1 Viewer)

[skol asylum]

Interesting conspiracy theory I just saw.

New England just signed KJ Osborne. That move will likely mean one more 3rd round comp pick for Minnesota next year.

Is it possible this was done as part of the negotiation for a trade of #3 to Minnesota giving them more capital to move to New England? With no 2nd round pick next year due to the first trade, Minnesota will now likely have 2 3rd round comp picks plus their own 3rd.

Vikings will get a 3rd for a team signing KJ?¿??

I don't understand the whole formula but the Osborne trade offsets players coming in. The two comps would really be for Kirk and Danielle. I assume the guy knows what he's talking about but maybe not.

 

[Boston]

Interesting conspiracy theory I just saw.

New England just signed KJ Osborne. That move will likely mean one more 3rd round comp pick for Minnesota next year.

Is it possible this was done as part of the negotiation for a trade of #3 to Minnesota giving them more capital to move to New England? With no 2nd round pick next year due to the first trade, Minnesota will now likely have 2 3rd round comp picks plus their own 3rd.

No way Minny is getting a third round comp pick for Osborn…he just signed a 1 year deal for around 4 mil with incentives…that is not even close to being in the neighborhood of a 3rd round comp pick.

 

[skol asylum]

I'm also wondering if Daniels may be Minnesota's target given the word that they tried hard to trade up for Richardson last year. Maybe they covet that duel threat? Or maybe KOC got a taste of it from Dobbs and decided he doesn't want a guy that goes off script?

 

[-OZ-]

They no doubt got ammo to move TEN out of 7 if a QB is available, but that will likely depend on NYG going WR.

I don’t see Tennessee trading down from 7 if Alt is there. Hypothetically, chargers take Alt, then it could happen. But it seems far more likely for MN to trade up to 5. Presuming Caleb, Maye, Daniels and MH jr are gone.

I do, don't think Alt is so head and shoulders above the other OT prospects. Maybe the best one, not head and shoulders. Even looking at Jeremiah's top 50, he's not got Alt as his top OT. Don''t think it's a consensus top OT.

Just mentioned this in another thread but hard for me to see MIN trading into 5, and for sure not before it's OTC, because it would be for a QB and the Giants could leap them into 4. So right now I'm predicting MIN into 4, MHJ to Chargers at 5, WR2 to Giants at 6, Ten trading out for someone to take WR3 at 7.

that works for me if it means Tennessee gets a top LT and another top 50 pick which could be a WR or defense.

 

[skol asylum]

Interesting conspiracy theory I just saw.

New England just signed KJ Osborne. That move will likely mean one more 3rd round comp pick for Minnesota next year.

Is it possible this was done as part of the negotiation for a trade of #3 to Minnesota giving them more capital to move to New England? With no 2nd round pick next year due to the first trade, Minnesota will now likely have 2 3rd round comp picks plus their own 3rd.

No way Minny is getting a third round comp pick for Osborn…he just signed a 1 year deal for around 4 mil with incentives…that is not even close to being in the neighborhood of a 3rd round comp pick.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if the Minnesota Vikings Have a Trade Up in Place? ð¤ð

We have a conspiracy theory: Do the Minnesota Vikings have a trade in place with the New England Patriots for the #3 overall pick? Was it contingent on the K...

youtu.be

 

[BigJim®]

I'm also wondering if Daniels may be Minnesota's target given the word that they tried hard to trade up for Richardson last year. Maybe they covet that duel threat? Or maybe KOC got a taste of it from Dobbs and decided he doesn't want a guy that goes off script?

Boy, thinking this through as a fan and not a front office exec, my first concern would be putting an immobile rookie behind the Vikes OL. I'd hope for more mobility to offset the reality that trade bounty may limit immediate ability to create a cozy pocket anytime soon. Secondarily, I'm looking for a prospect who will be able to utilize two recent WR investments (JJ/Addison) and Daniels did well feeding Nabers/Thomas JR in a pro offense. Third, I'd want a guy who satisfies JJ during contract negotiations, and a LSU guy checks that box.

 

[Boston]

Interesting conspiracy theory I just saw.

New England just signed KJ Osborne. That move will likely mean one more 3rd round comp pick for Minnesota next year.

Is it possible this was done as part of the negotiation for a trade of #3 to Minnesota giving them more capital to move to New England? With no 2nd round pick next year due to the first trade, Minnesota will now likely have 2 3rd round comp picks plus their own 3rd.

No way Minny is getting a third round comp pick for Osborn…he just signed a 1 year deal for around 4 mil with incentives…that is not even close to being in the neighborhood of a 3rd round comp pick.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if the Minnesota Vikings Have a Trade Up in Place? ð¤ð

We have a conspiracy theory: Do the Minnesota Vikings have a trade in place with the New England Patriots for the #3 overall pick? Was it contingent on the K...

youtu.be

Watched the first 4 minutes…it is entertaining…I do stand by that if the Pats make this deal and don’t get a 2024 #1 pick it will be disaster for them.

 

[skol asylum]

I'm also wondering if Daniels may be Minnesota's target given the word that they tried hard to trade up for Richardson last year. Maybe they covet that duel threat? Or maybe KOC got a taste of it from Dobbs and decided he doesn't want a guy that goes off script?

Boy, thinking this through as a fan and not a front office exec, my first concern would be putting an immobile rookie behind the Vikes OL. I'd hope for more mobility to offset the reality that trade bounty may limit immediate ability to create a cozy pocket anytime soon. Secondarily, I'm looking for a prospect who will be able to utilize two recent WR investments (JJ/Addison) and Daniels did well feeding Nabers/Thomas JR in a pro offense. Third, I'd want a guy who satisfies JJ during contract negotiations, and a LSU guy checks that box.

Count me in on a dynamic guy like Daniels for sure. Would Washington move out of that 2 spot though, assuming that's their target as well?

 

[Gally]

I don’t know if I agree with that necessarily. The Vikings look to be pretty high on the tankathon chart. Their 2025 1st could be top 5.

I don't see that at all. Their FA signings have been to compete. However, They won't have a shot if their QB of the future choice isn't the correct choice. But this is far from a true tanking effort.

Isn't Sam Darnold one of those?

Not really. He is a place holder to be a backup to whatever rookie they draft.

 

[ghostguy123]

Gotta imagine Washington is locked in to going QB at 2, otherwise why give Howell away?
I mean, Howell should not dictate what they do at 2 at all, but if there was any way they could consider not going QB or trading, getting rid of Howell would have just been idiotic.

 

[BigJim®]

Would Washington move out of that 2 spot though, assuming that's their target as well?

I'm unconvinced Washington prefers Daniels. They swung and missed previously with RGIII and Haskins. Maybe they go that route, maybe not. I guess the question is which QB is best suited for a Kliff Kingsbury passing offense. I'd speculate Maye, but Kingsbury did coach a mobile Kyler Murray, so who knows.

 

[massraider]

Gotta imagine Washington is locked in to going QB at 2, otherwise why give Howell away?
I mean, Howell should not dictate what they do at 2 at all, but if there was any way they could consider not going QB or trading, getting rid of Howell would have just been idiotic.

Yep, that's a tough needle to thread.

Unless, of course, their management are idiots. Possible.

MIN acquiring a late 1st this early, I think we should assume they have a plan in place. My assumption is they want top 3. Because if they just wanted McCarthy, they wouldn't need as much capital.

 

[kyoun1e]

It's not.
I don't think teams devalue their future picks like that anymore, otherwise you'd see a lot more 2nds being traded for future 1sts. You never see that.

That defies common sense (delaying benefit 1-2 years away should absolutely matter to a GM wanting to keep his job), but I respect your opinion.

Let's put it this way, it's not devalued as much as you said.

Again, respect your opinion but my initial question was for a poster who was making a conclusive statement of value using the 49ers trade "framework" - where it was not devalued at all. I gave example of historic devaluation, yes, but whether that is accurate is not the point. The point is whether OP was devaluing at all.

Conclusive statement?

Not sure how you're getting that from my post.

All I'm saying is NE will take that data point into consideration for damn sure. Will they get that? Who knows. I guess we'll see.

 

[skol asylum]

https://www.si.com/nfl/commanders/news/wasington-commanders-mock-draft-rumors-trade-drake-maye-new-england-patriots-jayden-daniels-kliff-kingsbury

 

[Grahamburn]

Bucs Trading Up for Jackson Powers Johnson?

 

[BigJim®]

Conclusive statement?

You don't view this as a conclusive statement?

If the T. Lance deal is the framework, it would be pick 11, 23, MN's 2025 first, and a third.

 

[kyoun1e]

Conclusive statement?

You don't view this as a conclusive statement?

If the T. Lance deal is the framework, it would be pick 11, 23, MN's 2025 first, and a third.

There's nothing conclusive about a "framework." A framework is a place to start. Not the end point.

Not sure why you're parsing words so much here on this.

The bottom line: NE WILL LOOK AT THAT TREY LANCE TRADE.

Got it?

 

[ghostguy123]

Gotta imagine Washington is locked in to going QB at 2, otherwise why give Howell away?
I mean, Howell should not dictate what they do at 2 at all, but if there was any way they could consider not going QB or trading, getting rid of Howell would have just been idiotic.

Yep, that's a tough needle to thread.

Unless, of course, their management are idiots. Possible.

MIN acquiring a late 1st this early, I think we should assume they have a plan in place. My assumption is they want top 3. Because if they just wanted McCarthy, they wouldn't need as much capital.

The Vikings trade to me does seem like they put themselves in a better position to move up.
However, if they don't, using a future 2nd to move from 42 to 23 will net them a much better player, so I don't think they made that deal with the assumption they are making another deal.
I see why they got the 23 regardless of whether or not they make another deal with it.
Houston must have just assumed all their top targets will be gone by 23. Kind of a weird deal for them to make before the draft.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think the Trey Lance trade is the framework of what NOT to do

 

[BigJim®]

Conclusive statement?

You don't view this as a conclusive statement?

If the T. Lance deal is the framework, it would be pick 11, 23, MN's 2025 first, and a third.

There's nothing conclusive about a "framework." A framework is a place to start. Not the end point.

Not sure why you're parsing words so much here on this.

The bottom line: NE WILL LOOK AT THAT TREY LANCE TRADE.

Got it?

Yeah, I totally agree. I just disagreed what value under that framework would be in terms of Vikes assets. I simply asked how you got to that conclusion, whether you were doing an apples/apples compare of value, etc. That was my point from the beginning.

 

[Boston]

Bucs Trading Up for Jackson Powers Johnson?

That is such an interesting name.

 

[-OZ-]

Bucs Trading Up for Jackson Powers Johnson?

That is such an interesting name.

“Tampa drafted a law firm.”

 

[Biabreakable]

Gotta imagine Washington is locked in to going QB at 2, otherwise why give Howell away?
I mean, Howell should not dictate what they do at 2 at all, but if there was any way they could consider not going QB or trading, getting rid of Howell would have just been idiotic.

Yep, that's a tough needle to thread.

Unless, of course, their management are idiots. Possible.

MIN acquiring a late 1st this early, I think we should assume they have a plan in place. My assumption is they want top 3. Because if they just wanted McCarthy, they wouldn't need as much capital.

The Vikings trade to me does seem like they put themselves in a better position to move up.
However, if they don't, using a future 2nd to move from 42 to 23 will net them a much better player, so I don't think they made that deal with the assumption they are making another deal.
I see why they got the 23 regardless of whether or not they make another deal with it.
Houston must have just assumed all their top targets will be gone by 23. Kind of a weird deal for them to make before the draft.

To me it's just a lot of talks and proposals between teams out there and this was one both teams wanted.

Maybe Houston sees Sam Darnold and thinks, that 2nd rounder in 2025 could be a high one.

The Vikings have some ideas about how that pick might help them in other proposals floated at them by other teams.

 

[Biabreakable]

According to the chart moving up from 11 to pick 2 is a lot harder than pick 3 or 4.

If one values a 2025 1st round pick as an average pick, 18 that is worth 900 points. But time value discount I am guessing that means that pick is worth more like 500 to 700 points. I am not sure exactly. Does anyone know?

Anyhow pick 11 pick 23 and 2025 1st round pick should get the Vikings to pick 2 IF Washington wants to deal.

Whatever the time value discount works out to be maybe Washington needs to give the Vikings a late round pick to make it even.

 

[Boston]

According to the chart moving up from 11 to pick 2 is a lot harder than pick 3 or 4.

If one values a 2025 1st round pick as an average pick, 18 that is worth 900 points. But time value discount I am guessing that means that pick is worth more like 500 to 700 points. I am not sure exactly. Does anyone know?

Anyhow pick 11 pick 23 and 2025 1st round pick should get the Vikings to pick 2 IF Washington wants to deal.

Whatever the time value discount works out to be maybe Washington needs to give the Vikings a late round pick to make it even.

Does the chart take into account if the trade up is for a QB? I don't think all things are equal if the target is a QB (especially if the team trading out needs a QB as well).

 

[Donnybrook]

Does the chart take into account if the trade up is for a QB? I don't think all things are equal if the target is a QB (especially if the team trading out needs a QB as well).

That why I am think a trade into the top 3 is very unlikely.

Rams traded down with the Commanders (for RG3) because they had Sam Bradford.
Miami traded down with the San Fran (for Trey Lance) because they had Tua
Bears traded down with the Panthers (for Bride Young) because they had Fields.

So all had 1st rounder they were trying to develop when they decided to take a trade package.

 

[Marauder]

Does the chart take into account if the trade up is for a QB? I don't think all things are equal if the target is a QB (especially if the team trading out needs a QB as well).

That why I am think a trade into the top 3 is very unlikely.

Rams traded down with the Commanders (for RG3) because they had Sam Bradford.
Miami traded down with the San Fran (for Trey Lance) because they had Tua
Bears traded down with the Panthers (for Bride Young) because they had Fields.

So all had 1st rounder they were trying to develop when they decided to take a trade package.

Yeah. If somebody wants to trade into the top 3, they're going to have to offer way more than any of the charts say.

 

[massraider]

Does the chart take into account if the trade up is for a QB? I don't think all things are equal if the target is a QB (especially if the team trading out needs a QB as well).

That why I am think a trade into the top 3 is very unlikely.

Rams traded down with the Commanders (for RG3) because they had Sam Bradford.
Miami traded down with the San Fran (for Trey Lance) because they had Tua
Bears traded down with the Panthers (for Bride Young) because they had Fields.

So all had 1st rounder they were trying to develop when they decided to take a trade package.

That is a........darn good point

 

[Donnybrook]

Does the chart take into account if the trade up is for a QB? I don't think all things are equal if the target is a QB (especially if the team trading out needs a QB as well).

That why I am think a trade into the top 3 is very unlikely.

Rams traded down with the Commanders (for RG3) because they had Sam Bradford.
Miami traded down with the San Fran (for Trey Lance) because they had Tua
Bears traded down with the Panthers (for Bride Young) because they had Fields.

So all had 1st rounder they were trying to develop when they decided to take a trade package.

"I’d say the Minnesota Vikings move to No. 4 for J.J. McCarthy, but that’s not to say they prefer the Michigan QB", per
@AlbertBreer
.He continues, "It’s because of what it sure seems like is going to happen within the top three. And at this point, my information... is that teams that have tried to trade into that range have been met with polite no’s from the #Bears, #Commanders and #Patriots."
Hmmmm......

 

[SayWhat?]

All I know is as a Vikings fan I'm way more excited for this draft then I have been in a while. Please don't screw it up Kwesi.

Exactly this. I’m so GD sick of the Vikings trading down, trading down, and trading down to acquire additional 4th-7th round picks that I could punch a wall. Move up when you can, and add some blue chip prospects. Love this trade.

Don’t think I’ve ever quoted myself, but I’m so GD happy that we are finally, for the first time ever, being aggressive and targeting impact players vs trying to get cute and accumulate seven 4th-6th round picks.

SKOL!