Pink Hearts, Yellow Moons, Orange Stars, and Green Clovers
With the renewed possibility that our Vikings are back in the hunt for the first pick in the draft, some are again enticed by Andrew Luck's charms. While it's unlikely that we will end up on top of the draft (doesn't that sounds so much more optimistic than "at the bottom of the league?"), l thought we should take a look at our options at #1. If nothing else, it's something people seem to like to talk about.
Join me after the jump for the details.
The Scenarios
1. Just draft Luck.
2. Draft Luck and trade Christian Ponder (this offseason or in the future).
3. Just draft someone else.
4. Trade the #1 pick.
Assumptions
Luck's Potential: Just to give you a little preview, I don't think we should just pick Luck. So, with that in mind, I'm going to weight this as much as I can in his favor. So let's assume that he will be everything the most optimistic projections say he can be. He's the second coming of Peyton Manning. He's the modern Johnny Unitas. He's legitimately among the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game. I'm skeptical of that outcome, and think there is just as good a chance that he turns into David Carr or Carson Palmer, but let's go with it. A guy like this get's you to the Super Bowl with less help from his teammates.
Ponder's Potential: It's still really early in the young man's career, but at this point I don't think his upside projects to an all time great. But I think he's shown enough already to project as a good, long-term, solid starting quarterback in the league. I don't think it's a stretch to project him as a Matt Hasselbeck or Brad Johnson, and I think his upside is in the neighborhood of Drew Brees (that is as a smart player who uses his head as much as his arm to make plays). A guy like can help you win a Super Bowl, but he's not going to do it all on his own.
Goals: Every football person who has ever lived has had "win a championship" as their stated goal. But anyone who is being honest has to admit that it's unrealistic for most teams most of the time. I'm going to assume that the goal for next year to is be competitive within the division and compete for a playoff spot, with the legitimate hope of being able to contend for a championship in the next season.
Needs: With those goals in mind, the minimum needs, meaning pieces that have to be put in place to achieve our goals this off season include: 1) starting LT, 2) a starting cornerback, 3) two starting safeties, 4) a starting wide receiver, 5) a starting defensive tackle and 6) linebacker depth.
Note I said minimum people. We can fashion the right side of the offensive line out of Berger, Fusco, and Charlie Johnson at guard and Loadholt and Love at tackle. I'm also assuming that Chris Cook gets his legal trouble cleared up and will be back next year. Note that this also leaves LG, WR depth, TE depth (assuming Shanks and The Sauce are gone), dback depth, and defensive tackle depth to be added in the following off season.
Value of the #1 pick: This is really the key assumption. If you're trading the #1 pick, what can you expect to get for it? I think a realistic minimum is a swap of first round picks, a second round pick this year and second rounder next year. That means two starters this year and one next year.
Actually, I think we can probably get a lot more than that (another pick this year and another next year, or a player this year), but again, I'm weighting this in favor of Luck in an effort to appease the leprechauns out there.
At this point, I think it's a little silly to talk about individual players we could draft (especially after the first round), so I'm going to just talk about positions of needs and where they logically slot in. Obviously, who's available when we are making the pick is absolutely key, but it's to early to really know much about that.
Projections
Scenario #1: If we just pick Luck, that means we can get a starter at LT in the second round, and maybe a starter at corner in the third and if we're really lucky a safety who can contribute right away in the fourth round (although it's unlikely to be a starter). That leaves at least 3-4 guys to get via trade/free agency. I don't know about you, but I really don't like our chances of getting quality talent for those positions while staying under the cap, which I think means most of those needs are put off until next year. I just can't see a team with the high end projections for Luck at QB and so many holes left unfilled winning more than 5-6 games, and we'd still have a lot of rebuilding to do.
Scenario #2: I guess I need another assumption for this one. Let's say we trade Ponder now. My guess is we could get a third round pick, maybe a second. That means one more need met. Now we draft Luck, LT, WR, CB, S, in that order. That's certainly better than just drafting Luck, in terms of meeting all of our needs, but it ups the stakes of the bet on Luck. He sure better quickly live up the the projections. Let's say that nets one more win (6-7) next year, and one less piece needed for the year after. Obviously, if you decide to keep Ponder and trade him in the future, that's another need left unfilled.
Scenario #3: The virtue of this option is not spending consecutive first round picks on the same position, meaning putting a high first round pick out on the field instead of standing on the sidelines holding a clipboard. In the same vein, this also avoids putting in place redundant quality backups when we already have Joe Webb in that role. Compared to just drafting Luck, it also allows us to fill one more need right away. So we get our starting LT in the first round, a starting CB in the second, maybe a starting safety in the third, and if we're lucky a WR who can contribute (but likely not start) in the fourth. I'd say this is pretty comparable to Scenario #2, with 6-7 wins next year and a clear path to being a legit contender the following year.
Scenario #4: The outcome here is foretold by the value assumption above. If we can get even the minimum value I project for the pick, we should take it. It means getting at least one more guy who is ready to start next year than all of the other scenarios, and perhaps two. That leaves a much more manageable project for next year's off season, and gives us the best chance to meet our goal of competing for the playoffs next season. I really don't think the choice is even close, but I'm sure plenty of you disagree.
So, what do you think?
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
45 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Eh
Would rather read an article about who we would take with our 1st pick rather than hoping for the no. 1 overall.
(if we end up getting no. 1 overall in a few weeks, I apologize in advance)
That's entirely reasonable
What are you doing commenting on the internet?? ;)
Greatest fan post title ever!
Billick: "What did McNabb do to deserve being benched?"
Answer: He upset PETA by killing every worm he came across on a football field.
The issue with your scenario
is assuming that our draft won’t be absolute garbage after round 1. Recent history would refute this.
Totally disagree....
With thinking we would only get a 3rd or 2nd round pick for Ponder. He has shown the ability to start in the NFL and given the fact that this is his rookie year he has shown poise under more pressure than most other teams give up. I see no reason that one of the QB hungry teams wouldn’t give up a first rounder for a QB that has already shown at the pro level that he gets “it” and could lead them for a long time.
This beats in my opinion trading up to draft a Barkley or hoping one of the QBs fall to them.
Teams that might be willing to make a trade like tis would be the Redskins, Dolphins, Seahawks. This pick might be good enough to get a LT (Martin or Reiff) then we would have Luck and a LT.
While you may be correct I don’t think you’re giving Ponder the credit he deserves given the pressure he has been under and his ability to lead the offense.
by VikesFanInTulsa on Dec 19, 2011 12:20 PM CST reply actions
Interesting
Although I’m not sure how wanting to keep Ponder as our QB is not giving him enough credit.
I guess I think you need to include a big discount in his trade value because we just drafted Luck or just signaled that we will draft Luck.
Anyway, maybe you are right and maybe we could get a first round pick. I still think we’re better off trading the right to pick Luck, which is worth more.
With your scenario
Of Luck being the next Manning then I would take my chances on trading Ponder, getting the OT, rebuilding the OL, WR, and defense and plan on winning Super Bowls after the next 3 years.
Or we could trade the Luck pick stick with Ponder and load up and make the playoffs in 1 or 2 years.
It would be kinda like the Patriots trading Brady instead of Cassell because he would have warranted more picks. Not that I’m comparing Ponder to Cassell.
by VikesFanInTulsa on Dec 19, 2011 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
I think the comparison
Is to letting Drew Brees walk away and getting Philip Rivers.
That might be a good comparison
With the difference being we actually have Ponder under contract so we would get something in return for him.
by VikesFanInTulsa on Dec 19, 2011 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
Voted Draft Luck only.
Assuming this one means we dont trade away Ponder. I want to see Luck, Ponder, Webb on the filed at the same time. Of course, the play would still have Webb run it but what fun it would be!
*sarcasm font
I think you mean
sarcasm font
"If the scheme doesn’t fit your players, change your damn scheme."
by Vikingsfan17 on Dec 19, 2011 3:41 PM CST up reply actions
Your typewriter certainly does.
put an @ in front of and behind your entire intended writing to obtain the weird sarcasm font.
and it looks like this
"If the scheme doesn’t fit your players, change your damn scheme."
by Vikingsfan17 on Dec 19, 2011 9:14 PM CST up reply actions
Seriously bro
I thought this was going to be a post about our favorite cereal or something. :) Now I have to go back and read through so I can try and give an insightful comment. Nice Job!
FYI mine is Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
"I bang sloots off the field, and I bang dudes on the field."
"I don't give a sh!t what your name is, as long as your initials are DTF."
Thad Castle
I thought it was about Lucky Charms
but he forgot to add ‘and the red baloons!’ at the end.
by REVENGE4KLUWE on Dec 19, 2011 8:24 PM CST up reply actions
It’s all about the Apple Jacks man. Get with the program.
If we can't laugh at ourselves, Packer fans will call us crybabies and we will be forced to kick their tooth in. I really don't want to go to jail (again).
by Alittlemore_cowbell on Dec 20, 2011 8:43 AM CST up reply actions
Ok
I read through and I gotta say it’s a nice write up. As for what I would do… I wouldn’t take Luck. Not that I don’t think he will be good, but because I think someone would give up the house to move up and get him and we have too many needs to address. Trading down would allow us to do that.
Besides I like Ponder. He’s shown that he can make mistakes, but he’s also flashed a bit. Give him some more time and another weapon and I think he’ll be fine. One year, and it’s one where he hasn’t had any protection and has pretty much had to learn things on the fly, doesn’t show enough to say he isn’t the answer to me. I’d like to give him another chance to be honest.
"I bang sloots off the field, and I bang dudes on the field."
"I don't give a sh!t what your name is, as long as your initials are DTF."
Thad Castle
A Decent, Solid QB Isn't Good Enough
Been there, done that. If that’s Ponder’s future, then draft Luck and trade Ponder.
IF the scouts are right, and Luck is a once-in-a-decade prospect, and miraculously, he falls to the Vikings board, TAKE HIM. He’ll be leading the team for the next 16+ years, there’s plenty of time to build around him for the future.
If Luck isn’t all that…. let him slide and get the OL/WR/DB slots taken care of.
But there’s not a lot of point in counting chickens before the eggs have hatched, and Ponder hasn’t been able to get out of his shell yet.
Everyone said how T-Jack was “ruined” by his first 6 starts that went badly, and he was pulled, and he never recovered. If that ruined T-Jack for the Vikings, what kind of condition is Ponder going to be in by the end of the season? Will his confidence be eroded, will he be unable to step back up? Will he get a career-ending injury next week? Who knows? There’s a long way to go between now and draft day.
And I want the Vikings to have a Franchise QB of their very damned own.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Good news
The “ruined” thing is silly.
Also, silly is betting that Luck, or anyone, will be better than decent and sold.
Finally, I’m not sure when we last had that. Brad Johnson I guess.
agreed
The ruined thing is unproven jibber jabber. The only place you see that statement is in posts, Ive never read a scout or anybody in football toss it out there…and how is it one guy is ruined due to starting early while another is just plain a bust?
@}-----You've been Touched-----{@
RUINED! SPOILED FOR LIFE!!!
The "ruined" thing is silly.
Heh. Yeah, I know. I never thought a player could be ruined by playing, and if a QB loses his confidence and is unable to play because he had a bad throw or a bad game or a bad season… then he doesn’t have the ‘Right Stuff’ to be a college QB, let alone an NFL QB. Better to find that out sooner, than later.
But yeah, I threw that out there for the ‘T-Jack was ruined’ folks. Certainly you’d have trouble convincing the Seahawks of that.
Also, silly is betting that Luck, or anyone, will be better than decent and sold.
Here I disagree. If you take that attitude, then you roll with Rosencopter because you don’t think highly rated rookie QB, #1 draft pick, has a good shot of being a franchise guy. You have to take that chance, ESPECIALLY if you’re the Vikings. An average QB isn’t going to be competitive in a division that boasts Rodgers, Cutler, and Stafford for competition over the next 10-15 years.
We need the real deal, and we need to accept that it’s going to take at least 2-3 years from NOW to get back in truly competitive form. That means there’s time to build the line, there’s time to fix the problems and we’ll get there. But there is one, and only one, chance to get Lucky.
Now, if Luck isn’t all that and a bag of chips, sure, let him slide. And I wouldn’t suggest doing this for anyone EXCEPT for Luck. Any one further down the totem pole and we’re probably ok with Ponder.
Finally, I’m not sure when we last had that. Brad Johnson I guess.
I think we’re over-due.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
Interesting
I’d call Cutler and Stafford average. Maybe slightly above average, but not much, although Stafford still has potential he hasn’t had time to reach yet.
And I wouldn’t call Rosencopter decent and solid. Maybe a decent, solid backup, but not a decent solid starter.
But if you’re going to take 2-3 year to rebuild (btw, I think 2 SHOULD be sufficient, if you don’t shoot yourself in the foot), how about letting Ponder use those years to develop? You know, instead of shooting yourself in the foot for a year?
But you really get to my sticking point on this. I don’t think there is really any amount of Luck goodness that makes it make sense to draft another quarterback. There just isn’t enough theoretical upside, once discounted for the inherent risk, that makes it make sense to put all your talent at one position. EVEN IF he’s Manning, he’s not worth the damage you do to your team by ignoring everything else.
Well, that is unless you think you have seen enough and you can confidentially say that Ponder will never be able to do the job. And if you can say that, we haven’t been watching the same player.
Speaking of Manning...
Perhaps this is a good time to point out the difference between the Colts with and without Manning. A top QB can be the difference between a very good team and a team that looks like complete shit. I am trying to imagine what the Packers would look like without Rodgers. The vision does not look pretty, which is why he will be a very deserving NFL MVP.
That argument would be a lot more compelling
If the Colts had Christian Ponder, or Christian Ponder as he is after getting a year or two to develop.
That is very true
what they do have is nothing near what Ponder is right now, let alone after a year or two of improvement.
Hey Mill
Im not challenging you on this Im asking…you see us 2 years competitive? I’m thinking 3 and actually strong in the 4th. I think 2 narrows the the mistake margine. 2 years I think would have to make all your picks in the draft and FA work out no "to bad so sad on some guys. my 3-4 is a risk also as you have some key guys aged and just leaving prime. Tough call when we see so much need. Any thoughts?
@}-----You've been Touched-----{@
Define competitive?
Because yeah, in two years I think we can be in the mix for the division and playoff bound. As you say, it will take some good decisions, though.
I think 2 years is a dream....
Not just because of our lack of solid talent but more to the fact the Packers and Lions have that talent and both are very young. 3-4 years closer to 4 give the talent we get time to get seasoned and if we get (luck)y the Lions and Packers could lose some of their talent to age and FA.
by VikesFanInTulsa on Dec 21, 2011 7:15 AM CST up reply actions
Im thinking competitive
The team gets in the playoffs on there own record not backing in or crossing fingers someone loses to get them in.
@}-----You've been Touched-----{@
Tjack wasn't ruined
he just sucked.
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
by Grime on Dec 20, 2011 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
A decent solid QB is good enough
To get you into the play offs. A great QB is good enough to get you into the Super Bowl. Hate to say it boys but this is a passing league and we can oo and ah over AD as much as we want but he’s not taking us there. You have to go BPA period. This is how you make a great team great. You don’t take a bunch of average talent and make it great you have to have some great talent on your team. We picked up AD when we had CT and I don’t think anyone would refute we had bigger needs (just about everywhere) that year, but I also don’t think anyone would disagree that is was a great choice.
Great players make great teams. Rebuilding in three years with amazing QB or rebuilding in two years with an average to good QB. Really is there even a reason why you don’t just go for the three year plan?
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
by Grime on Dec 20, 2011 9:04 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
You need great talent
But not all at one position. Even QB.
And the team that picked AD was pretty solid and could afford the luxury to upgrade. It didn’t have absolute gaping holes (LT) that needed to be filled before it could sniff .500.
We are picking at 35 I believe as well as 2 or 3.
With that pick a good team could pick a starting LT if they wanted to.
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
Sure
But picking a QB means one less pick, and a high one, to spend on LT, CB, S, WR, DT, RG, etc.
If all we needed was a LT, well then, heck yeah, pick the QB “upgrade.” But we don’t have that luxury. We have more needs — actual, “we really can’t keep playing the guys we have” needs — than we will be able to fill in this off season.
Oh I agree with you that we have a crap ton of needs
I just would say I’m more patient in my wait on a return. If I’m going to build a house and can either do it out of good materials in 5 months or great materials in a year well I"ll wait a year. Even if that means I’m living in a crap hole right now. Just the way I think, yeah it’s not quite as cut and dry as that as we don’t ‘truly’ know Luck is the ‘one’. Honestly though, always use the best materials and utilize patience. This is a rebuild we won’t be magically better next year guys.
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
Yeah, I don't see that as patience
Patience would be giving the talent you have (Ponder) time to develop before spending more resources on that position.
Impatient is picking the next “hot” prospect even though it hurts your team, because you aren’t addressing your many needs.
It's been 51 years in building the house...
Will it be done anytime soon?
by liveforadrenaline on Dec 20, 2011 2:36 PM CST up reply actions
shut up and swing that hammer
We’ve got to redo the foundation again… :p
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
I see what you are saying
And I’m not sure I would do it at every position, but QB is the most important position in this game. Having a great, good or average QB effects the club so much that it’s not even funny, so yeah I’ll wait on this one because I think it’s worth it, and it migth be the only chance we get to be this low in the draft ever (hopefully)
The Vikes aren't in a remodeling or reconstruction they are in a burn the place down and start praying they don't mimic the Lions rebuilding process.
Agree 100%
And I think those that wouldn’t take Luck over Ponder don’t look long term. Most of the anti-Luck or pro-Ponder posters fail to realize or under value Ponder trade value. And I say if you think so little of his value why wouldn’t you get Luck if possible. They say if you think so much of his value why not build around him. Well lets look at the players like cars if Ponder is a Vette than Luck is a Lamborghini and I don’t know about the rest of you but I’d rather be driving that Lamborghini around for the next 15 -20 years.
Ponder isn’t bad in fact he may end up being very good (I hope so cause this is all a pipe dream anyhow) but I’d rather have the best QB in the division than the 3rd or 4th best 4 years down the road when we should be competitive again.
by VikesFanInTulsa on Dec 21, 2011 7:27 AM CST up reply actions
Doesn't matter now - we blew our chance at Luck
Stupid Vikings. \:( Even when we win, we lose. LOL Sigh.

by 

























