BALT v VIKES 11/9/25

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Because it's sample bias. His results are probably pretty normal especially when you look at how many of the Viking picks have been in the top three rounds v. the bottom of the draft. As well as ignoring bringing in talent the other way. The anti-Kwesi crowd is simply insane for whatever reason they have to dislike him but results have been very good - 38-22. So the idea that his drafts suck are the last refugee but it's always in a vacuum, ignoring draft results, development, trades, injuries, team position, and importance of the draft in building a team. 

I'm not anti-KAM, but seriously, I don't know how there can be an honest conversation about this if everyone can't at least agree the last four drafts have been poor and unacceptable.

I really dislike the all too common method of arguing where if a poster doesn't like a person, they will pile all the bad things onto the person, never acknowledge anything positive they've done, and act like he/she is a singular evil. It's dishonest and immature.

But it goes the other way too when EVERYTHING a person does is spot on. KAM has orchestrated some really bad drafts. Trying to put rose-colored glasses on that aspect takes away from any argument regarding any other positive things he may have done.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Because it's sample bias. His results are probably pretty normal especially when you look at how many of the Viking picks have been in the top three rounds v. the bottom of the draft. As well as ignoring bringing in talent the other way. The anti-Kwesi crowd is simply insane for whatever reason they have to dislike him but results have been very good - 38-22. So the idea that his drafts suck are the last refugee but it's always in a vacuum, ignoring draft results, development, trades, injuries, team position, and importance of the draft in building a team. 

I think we've found the source of our disagreement!

Hiring the right head coach, and drafting better than your opponents are, imo, the two most important things for long term success. You feel differently (unless that last sentence doesn't mean what I think).

Also, I don't know why we can't acknowledge the drafts have sucked? The team has been very successful, but I have doubts about the long term viability of that w/o better drafts. You seem to disagree. I and others have acknowledged that until this year, they've done a great job in FA. But man, they were wrong on the two DTs, the center had multiple concussions coming in, and they let two good DBs walk....Mason, as many have said here, was a steal. 

But, imo, you can't build a team w/o good drafts. You seem to disagree with that. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, gunnarthor said:

Because it's sample bias. His results are probably pretty normal especially when you look at how many of the Viking picks have been in the top three rounds v. the bottom of the draft. As well as ignoring bringing in talent the other way. The anti-Kwesi crowd is simply insane for whatever reason they have to dislike him but results have been very good - 38-22. So the idea that his drafts suck are the last refugee but it's always in a vacuum, ignoring draft results, development, trades, injuries, team position, and importance of the draft in building a team. 

It's sample bias?  I don't even know what that means in this context, and I'm guessing you don't either.  Pretty much every person on this board, other than you, is looking at the entirety of KAM's draft record, and calling out the reality--KAM has failed to provide starting caliber talent at an acceptable level.  Go look at the Vikings depth chart on defense; not a single starter was drafted by KAM (Pace was UDFA, but he comes off the field in nickel).  On offense, it's only a little better at 3 (4 if they go 11 personnel); that's at best 4 drafted players starting out of 24 starters (if you count 3rd WR/2nd TE and nickel DB/4th LB as 2 starters each).  So simple math says he's finding one starter a year in the draft.

You're saying his result are "probably pretty normal", which suggests you've done no analysis, and are therefore falling back on your own confirmation bias to just assume that KAM is fine.

In a conversation on if KAM is good at drafting, giving him credit for bringing in players via other routes than the draft is not relevant.

The anti-Kwesi crowd is hardly insane to point out things that are objectively true.  The pro-Kwesi crowd (which at this point seems to be just you) is so in denial about this, and for the life of me I can't understand why.  Is Kwesi paying you to post nice things about his drafting on this board?  Are you actually Kwesi using a burner account?

Yeah, KAM has had fewer picks in round 3 than normal--and who's fault is that?  Of right, KAM's, for trading those picks in foolish trades for bad results.

KAM has been GM of a team that has gone 38-22 in his tenure; that's pretty much the only factual thing you've posted in this thread.  The Vikings have undeniably been pretty good in FA during his tenure, but as has been discussed in other threads, much of that has to do with Flores doing the scouting and telling KAM who to sign.  I personally want more out of my GM than to be a paper pusher.

Your final sentence is nothing more than a grab bag of nonsense.  You're accusing people who are painstakingly going through his drafts and the results of ignoring draft results?  How is looking at his draft results to determine if he's good at drafting looking at his drafting in a vacuum?  What development are we missing in the draft?  How many players are clearly better in year 2 and 3 right now?  No one is ignoring injuries, and they're not KAM's fault, but it doesn't change the fact that his job is to draft productive players and injuries are a part of football (or did you think that only Vikings draft picks get injured?)

The draft is the single most important tool to build a team.  It's not the only one, it might not even be more important than all the others combined, but it is the single most important thing a GM can do to build a winning team.  Teams that draft well are almost always competitive.  Teams that don't draft well might pop up for a season or two, but at best struggle to remain competitive year in and year out (like the Vikings), or are just flat bad year after year.  Your continued insistence that the draft is not that important, but also KAM is a good drafter is just not at all grounded in reality.

[Cap'n Piranha]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not anti-KAM, but seriously, I don't know how there can be an honest conversation about this if everyone can't at least agree the last four drafts have been poor and unacceptable.

I really dislike the all too common method of arguing where if a poster doesn't like a person, they will pile all the bad things onto the person, never acknowledge anything positive they've done, and act like he/she is a singular evil. It's dishonest and immature.

But it goes the other way too when EVERYTHING a person does is spot on. KAM has orchestrated some really bad drafts. Trying to put rose-colored glasses on that aspect takes away from any argument regarding any other positive things he may have done.

Totally agree.  Everyone on this board knows I'm about as anti-KAM and anti-KOC as they come, BUT that comes in the context of I'm approaching my mid-40's, and I've never even seen the Vikings in a SB, let alone win one.  Based on what I've seen over the past 3+ years, I don't think either of them is at the level to change that, and I don't want to waste another 3-5 years putting teams on the field that need to get lucky to make it to the divisional round; I'd rather tear it down to the studs and build something from an actual good foundation.

If I was 24?  I'd have no problem letting KAM and KOC have a few more years to see if they can level up, but given that I'm not, and it's IMO at best a 5% chance they both find another gear, I say move on.  I'd rather go 4-13 for 5 straight years if that's what necessary to build the foundation of a legitimate SB contender than make the playoffs for the next 5 years, but as a WC that never is truly an elite team.  Both KAM and KOC seem like nice human beings, and generally decent at their jobs, but those are two things that don't win Superbowls.  Also, not being capable of winning a SB is not a black mark on someone--they're both far more qualified to do that than I would be.  But in the profession they've chosen, the results are what matter, and they are not delivering.

All that said, I would be very surprised if the two of them are out either after this year or even next year.  Assuming the Vikings finish 4th in the North, their schedule sets up pretty well for a bounce-back record-wise next year; they get to play the AFC East and NFC South (games against NYJ, MIA, CAR, NO, and ATL should all be very winnable), and will get non-rotational games against probably NYG, ARI, and TEN.  That's half your schedule that a competent team should go 7-1 against, and just going 3-6 in the other games gets you to 10 wins and a good shot at a wild card.

So long story short, I'm resigned to the Vikings getting through probably year 7 of the KAM/KOC regime before the Wilfs realize it's not working after the Vikes miss the playoffs for the 4th time in 7 years after the 2027 season, and attempt to do a reset.  Hopefully they'll do it right this time, and not pretend that a team that's bad enough to fire GM and coach can somehow actually become elite in one offseason, but I'm guessing the Wilfs feel even more pressure than I do to win now

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Better to try to rein in a wild kid like McCarthy, than try to coax a timid kid out of his shell. (Not that the NFL is full of timid QBs but we have seen them, for sure). 

In that vein, it will be interesting to see how long Darnold maintains his performance. I don’t know if he was the timid type before he came to the Vikings, or just bad / or in bad situations. I know he made the seeing ghosts comment. It will be interesting to see Darnold’s playoff performance. If he continues on a high level this season, and McCarthy can put it together this season, then sure, heat the QB discussion to rolling boil. But it’s bizarre people are already positioning to call McCarthy a bust.

We can rant and rave, but on the whole, I don’t think there’s any question KOC is a good to great coach.

Not every year is going to be “your year” and it seems last year should have been ours. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

20 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

This team is good enough to beat anyone in the NFC.

My outside friend football observer says the same. Also has been saying that it’s a winnable division for the Vikings with our players on the field. It doesn’t feel like it to me, but heck, the Bears are a good week out of first place now.

[Parfigliano]

12 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Better to try to rein in a wild kid like McCarthy, than try to coax a timid kid out of his shell. (Not that the NFL is full of timid QBs but we have seen them, for sure). 

In that vein, it will be interesting to see how long Darnold maintains his performance. I don’t know if he was the timid type before he came to the Vikings, or just bad / or in bad situations. I know he made the seeing ghosts comment. It will be interesting to see Darnold’s playoff performance. If he continues on a high level this season, and McCarthy can put it together this season, then sure, heat the QB discussion to rolling boil. But it’s bizarre people are already positioning to call McCarthy a bust.

We can rant and rave, but on the whole, I don’t think there’s any question KOC is a good to great coach.

Not every year is going to be “your year” and it seems last year should have been ours. 

I think it's way to early to call JMc a boom, a bust, or somewhere in between the two.  He's only played 4-5 games.

[Cap'n Piranha]

26 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Better to try to rein in a wild kid like McCarthy, than try to coax a timid kid out of his shell. (Not that the NFL is full of timid QBs but we have seen them, for sure). 

In that vein, it will be interesting to see how long Darnold maintains his performance. I don’t know if he was the timid type before he came to the Vikings, or just bad / or in bad situations. I know he made the seeing ghosts comment. It will be interesting to see Darnold’s playoff performance. If he continues on a high level this season, and McCarthy can put it together this season, then sure, heat the QB discussion to rolling boil. But it’s bizarre people are already positioning to call McCarthy a bust.

We can rant and rave, but on the whole, I don’t think there’s any question KOC is a good to great coach.

Not every year is going to be “your year” and it seems last year should have been ours. 

I don't think it's accurate to say anyone is calling JJM a bust.  People are saying JJM is not playing well.  Here's an excerpt from a Bill Barnwell article (linked below) that sums it up pretty well.

"Has McCarthy played well? No. He's completing less than 54% of his passes, throwing interceptions 5.6% of the time and taking sacks on over 12% of his dropbacks. Any of those stats would be disqualifying as an NFL starter. Having all of them together is disastrous."

I think all of the "anti-JJM" folks would readily agree that there's still room for him to get better, and potentially quite a bit better.  But it feels like the "pro-JJM" folks are completely unwilling to address how bad JJM has been, and that it's not just a product of not having enough reps.  In the second article linked below, there's a quick comparison of JJM and the other 5 round 1 QBs from 2024, which details that in the first 4 games of each player's career, JJM is the least accurate and is throwing for the fewest yards/game.  That's an issue, since while JJM didn't get live reps in a game last year, he did get the whole year to get into the playbook, and familiarize himself with how the NFL works; he also is in most likely the best situation of all those QBs too.  There has to be acknowledgment that despite some pretty significant advantages, JJM is performing worse than his direct peers did in the same selection of games.

As bizarre as it would be to call JJM a bust after 4 games (and to be clear, that's not happening), it's equally as bizarre to say JJM is undoubtedly going to be an elite QB (which has been said by at least one poster in this thread).

Barnwell Article

1st Year QB Article

[TheLeviathan]

6 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Because it's sample bias. His results are probably pretty normal especially when you look at how many of the Viking picks have been in the top three rounds v. the bottom of the draft. As well as ignoring bringing in talent the other way. The anti-Kwesi crowd is simply insane for whatever reason they have to dislike him but results have been very good - 38-22. So the idea that his drafts suck are the last refugee but it's always in a vacuum, ignoring draft results, development, trades, injuries, team position, and importance of the draft in building a team. 

He picked twelfth in 2022!!!!  And 11th two years later.  

In the same time span as Kwesi the Packers have had 43 picks.  25 of them are on the roster.  58% vs 43%.  Of those 25 there are 6 regularly played WRS.  3 starting offensive linemen.  2 regular tight ends, one of which is a top three TE in the league at this point.  A good backup running back.  2 starting defensive linemen and one key rotational DL.  2 starting linebackers.  2 starting defensive backs.

The Packers picked 22, 23, 25, and 13 in those years vs. us at 12, 23, 11, and 24.

How many more teams before I crack this argument and you try and see it for what it is?  His drafting has sucked.  The team has done well.  I'm not calling for him to be fired.

But his drafting has sucked.  This is just a fact.  A part of objective reality.  What's the point of arguing something so wildly, obviously false?

[TheLeviathan]

Ah hell, I think this argument needs to be dunked once and for all, here's the vaunted Bears since 2022:

2022: No first round pick and still came away with Brisker, Kyler Gordon, Dominique Robinson, Braxton Jones, and Elijah Hicks.  (Two starting DBs, a starting DE, and a starting OL to go with a backup DB)

2023: OT Darnell Wright, DL Dexter, CB Stevenson, LB Noah Sewell, and RB Roschon Johnson

2024: Caleb Williams, Rome Odunze, backup OL, punter

2025: Loveland, Burden, 5 backups including Monangi.

34 picks.  62% still on the roster.  11 starters.  Several key backups.

The ****ing Bears!!!!

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Ah hell, I think this argument needs to be dunked once and for all, here's the vaunted Bears since 2022:

2022: No first round pick and still came away with Brisker, Kyler Gordon, Dominique Robinson, Braxton Jones, and Elijah Hicks.  (Two starting DBs, a starting DE, and a starting OL to go with a backup DB)

2023: OT Darnell Wright, DL Dexter, CB Stevenson, LB Noah Sewell, and RB Roschon Johnson

2024: Caleb Williams, Rome Odunze, backup OL, punter

2025: Loveland, Burden, 5 backups including Monangi.

34 picks.  62% still on the roster.  11 starters.  Several key backups.

The ****ing Bears!!!!

Kwesi drafts have stunk for years.  It's a big problem.

[gunnarthor]

7 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not anti-KAM, but seriously, I don't know how there can be an honest conversation about this if everyone can't at least agree the last four drafts have been poor and unacceptable.

I really dislike the all too common method of arguing where if a poster doesn't like a person, they will pile all the bad things onto the person, never acknowledge anything positive they've done, and act like he/she is a singular evil. It's dishonest and immature.

But it goes the other way too when EVERYTHING a person does is spot on. KAM has orchestrated some really bad drafts. Trying to put rose-colored glasses on that aspect takes away from any argument regarding any other positive things he may have done.

All right, let's go through this. I said his draft results aren't as bad as people are freaking out about and I think I'm right. YMMV. But you have to be able to define what a good pick is or is it just star/bust? I don't think it's reasonable to think a 7th rounder and a 1st rounder should be compared equally. Here are a few articles about hit rates based on round and position. Your success by pick changes pretty rapidly - a player picked 15th overall has a 60% chance of being a "hit" (arbitrary definition) while a player being picked at the end of the first round drops to 50%. It also depends on position, with OL outperforming and DB and Edges under performing. So the Vikes picks - 

1 - Cine, Addison, Turner, McCarthy, and Jackson. One player busted, one player hit. The jury is still out on McCarthy and Jackson. Some people on this site are calling Turner a bust. I can't fathom that. He's playing a lot in a complex defensive scheme despite playing the same spot as Greenard and Gink. I also think this is a good example of how hard it is to grade players. I posted a video of Chase Daniels breaking down JJ's performance against the Ravens in this thread and he specifically called out Jackson for having a bad game. PFF on the other hand had Jackson as the 4th best offensive player. I think that is a problem with Turner. He seems to be doing the stuff that the coaches want and playing well as part of a good defensive rotation, including a bunch of starts this year. I don't see how anyone can say that's a bust. He's not an all-pro but solid starter type in his second year seems miles away from bust. And if you want to credit the Packers for Van Ness, Walker, and Wyatt, Turner isn't a bust. 

2 - Ingram and Booth. Ingram was basically a day one starter. That's a hit. Booth was a miss. 1-2 on picks is better than the average.

3 - Asamoth, Blackmon, Felton. Felton is still too early on but is a good ST but hasn't broken in as a receiver. Asamoth is a bust. Blackmon is a hit. 1-2 w/TBD seems better than avg.

4 - Evans, Ward and Jackson. Jackson passed away so bust. Evans also a bust. But what is the realistic expectation for a fourth rounder? Ward has played well on ST for three years. For the 134th pick in the draft, is that good? If yes, 1-3, if no, 0-3. Average odds of 4th round DB becoming consistent starter is about 10%. 

5 - Otomewo, Chandler, Roy, Hall, TID. Probably four busts with TID still to be determined. 

6 - Lowe, Nailor, Rouse, Reichard, King, Bartholomew. Nailor seems like a hit. Same with Reichard. Rouse is depth but nothing else so probably a bust. King and Bartholomew are still TBD but probably will be busts, realistically.  

7 - Muse, McBride, Jurgens, Rodriguez. Two busts but I think Jurgens and Rodriguez are hits for being 7th round picks. 

Undrafted guys and practice squad pick ups - Redmond, Pace, Brosmer, Jackson, Price. If these guys were 6/7 round picks, does it change your opinion of the drafts? If it does, you shouldn't be complaining. 

So I think those draft results are better than others do especially considering how few picks were in the 1/2 rounds - and obviously JJ's development will be the most important part. I think having only seven 1/2 round picks over five years will make your drafts look worse than they are. It's also worth taking a moment to see if the draft was a bad pick or just didn't work out. This year the Jags traded up to get Hunter. He's supposed to be all-world and game changer, playing offense and defense. He's now on the IR. If he's done (and he isn't), were the Jags stupid to make that pick or was it a smart pick that didn't work out? Cine was expected to be the third safety and not start right away with us. He then had his ankle break out of his skin and never became what was expected. Bad pick, yes but did it make sense and not work out?

[gunnarthor]

Now if you want to argue that trading away all those picks was not a good idea, maybe. 

[Vanimal46]

34 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I said his draft results aren't as bad as people are freaking out about and I think I'm right.

No reason to discuss further when we're living in completely different worlds. 

[TheLeviathan]

9 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

All right, let's go through this. I said his draft results aren't as bad as people are freaking out about and I think I'm right. YMMV. But you have to be able to define what a good pick is or is it just star/bust? I don't think it's reasonable to think a 7th rounder and a 1st rounder should be compared equally. Here are a few articles about hit rates based on round and position. Your success by pick changes pretty rapidly - a player picked 15th overall has a 60% chance of being a "hit" (arbitrary definition) while a player being picked at the end of the first round drops to 50%. It also depends on position, with OL outperforming and DB and Edges under performing. So the Vikes picks - 

1 - Cine, Addison, Turner, McCarthy, and Jackson. One player busted, one player hit. The jury is still out on McCarthy and Jackson. Some people on this site are calling Turner a bust. I can't fathom that. He's playing a lot in a complex defensive scheme despite playing the same spot as Greenard and Gink. I also think this is a good example of how hard it is to grade players. I posted a video of Chase Daniels breaking down JJ's performance against the Ravens in this thread and he specifically called out Jackson for having a bad game. PFF on the other hand had Jackson as the 4th best offensive player. I think that is a problem with Turner. He seems to be doing the stuff that the coaches want and playing well as part of a good defensive rotation, including a bunch of starts this year. I don't see how anyone can say that's a bust. He's not an all-pro but solid starter type in his second year seems miles away from bust. And if you want to credit the Packers for Van Ness, Walker, and Wyatt, Turner isn't a bust. 

2 - Ingram and Booth. Ingram was basically a day one starter. That's a hit. Booth was a miss. 1-2 on picks is better than the average.

3 - Asamoth, Blackmon, Felton. Felton is still too early on but is a good ST but hasn't broken in as a receiver. Asamoth is a bust. Blackmon is a hit. 1-2 w/TBD seems better than avg.

4 - Evans, Ward and Jackson. Jackson passed away so bust. Evans also a bust. But what is the realistic expectation for a fourth rounder? Ward has played well on ST for three years. For the 134th pick in the draft, is that good? If yes, 1-3, if no, 0-3. Average odds of 4th round DB becoming consistent starter is about 10%. 

5 - Otomewo, Chandler, Roy, Hall, TID. Probably four busts with TID still to be determined. 

6 - Lowe, Nailor, Rouse, Reichard, King, Bartholomew. Nailor seems like a hit. Same with Reichard. Rouse is depth but nothing else so probably a bust. King and Bartholomew are still TBD but probably will be busts, realistically.  

7 - Muse, McBride, Jurgens, Rodriguez. Two busts but I think Jurgens and Rodriguez are hits for being 7th round picks. 

Undrafted guys and practice squad pick ups - Redmond, Pace, Brosmer, Jackson, Price. If these guys were 6/7 round picks, does it change your opinion of the drafts? If it does, you shouldn't be complaining. 

So I think those draft results are better than others do especially considering how few picks were in the 1/2 rounds - and obviously JJ's development will be the most important part. I think having only seven 1/2 round picks over five years will make your drafts look worse than they are. It's also worth taking a moment to see if the draft was a bad pick or just didn't work out. This year the Jags traded up to get Hunter. He's supposed to be all-world and game changer, playing offense and defense. He's now on the IR. If he's done (and he isn't), were the Jags stupid to make that pick or was it a smart pick that didn't work out? Cine was expected to be the third safety and not start right away with us. He then had his ankle break out of his skin and never became what was expected. Bad pick, yes but did it make sense and not work out?

So you're just going to completely ignore the comparisons to the teams in our own division?   You asserted that the argument needs context, I gave you context, and you just whistle right by?

The three teams in our division are hitting MUCH higher on both clear, impact hits and regular contributors.  (And depth!)  

You are both actively inflating the impact of the guys we actually have and ignoring the context and missed opportunities.  I don't care what draft experts said about Cine - the FO's job is to hit on that pick.  Instead, we traded the 12th overall pick down to the 32nd, got a bunch of none-premium picks for it, passed on dudes that are all-world at their position right now that also happen to be huge needs for the Vikings (Lindebaum, Hamilton, among others), AND blew the pick.  Oh right....AND blew the picks they traded down to get!  

Is Kwesi in the room with you while you're posting?  Tab twice if you need help!

 

[gunnarthor]

44 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

So you're just going to completely ignore the comparisons to the teams in our own division?   You asserted that the argument needs context, I gave you context, and you just whistle right by?

The three teams in our division are hitting MUCH higher on both clear, impact hits and regular contributors.  (And depth!)  

You are both actively inflating the impact of the guys we actually have and ignoring the context and missed opportunities.  I don't care what draft experts said about Cine - the FO's job is to hit on that pick.  Instead, we traded the 12th overall pick down to the 32nd, got a bunch of none-premium picks for it, passed on dudes that are all-world at their position right now that also happen to be huge needs for the Vikings (Lindebaum, Hamilton, among others), AND blew the pick.  Oh right....AND blew the picks they traded down to get!  

Is Kwesi in the room with you while you're posting?  Tab twice if you need help!

 

sigh

I'm not going through all 32 teams draft histories, that's why I cited a couple articles about draft history to show that the Vikings draft results aren't out of line with their picks. I understand you dislike the 2022 draft, you'll be happy to know that Kwesi made significant changes to his scouting and drafting staff after the 2023 draft. I've posted that link quite often.

As for the Packers, some of their fans complained that their inability to draft pass rushers with those 1st round picks was the reason they had to trade away future first round picks to cover up those bad draft choices. But literally every team has those concerns. My point - again - is that the drafts haven't been as bad as people say and are probably in line with normal draft expectations over time. That doesn't mean I think they were great, 2022 clearly was a bad draft that harmed you and your loved ones. I'm sorry for that. But I think the 2023-2025 drafts was perfectly fine for the picks they actually had - 4 firsts and 2 thirds. And this is just discussing drafts and not the other ways the team has added cheap talent to its roster.

[TheLeviathan]

23 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

sigh

I'm not going through all 32 teams draft histories, that's why I cited a couple articles about draft history to show that the Vikings draft results aren't out of line with their picks. I understand you dislike the 2022 draft, you'll be happy to know that Kwesi made significant changes to his scouting and drafting staff after the 2023 draft. I've posted that link quite often.

As for the Packers, some of their fans complained that their inability to draft pass rushers with those 1st round picks was the reason they had to trade away future first round picks to cover up those bad draft choices. But literally every team has those concerns. My point - again - is that the drafts haven't been as bad as people say and are probably in line with normal draft expectations over time. That doesn't mean I think they were great, 2022 clearly was a bad draft that harmed you and your loved ones. I'm sorry for that. But I think the 2023-2025 drafts was perfectly fine for the picks they actually had - 4 firsts and 2 thirds. And this is just discussing drafts and not the other ways the team has added cheap talent to its roster.

You can't hide behind context and then also ignore context as it suits your argument.  If anyone deserves a sigh, it's for that kind of tactic.  It's simply not even attempting to have a fair discussion. 

I went out of my way to look at two teams right in our own division.  I even ignored the one that would be a blowout vs. Kwesi on purpose out of an attempt at fairness.  And your response is "Well...I don't know about the other 30 teams....".  "Let me cherry pick an argument about pass rushers on Green Bay" (And ignore 3/5 of an OL, an entire WR room, 6 defensive starters....like....WTF?)  C'mon man.  

I've even said I'm not at a point where I fire him yet.  I want to see the 10 picks we have next year and how they're used.  I'm just not living a fairy tale where the prior results are anything other than a failure.  That's a fact.  That's reality.  This alternate reality you're living is fine for you.  Enjoy.  Stop trying to pretend you can rationally defend it.

[gunnarthor]

10 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You can't hide behind context and then also ignore context as it suits your argument.  If anyone deserves a sigh, it's for that kind of tactic.  It's simply not even attempting to have a fair discussion. 

I went out of my way to look at two teams right in our own division.  I even ignored the one that would be a blowout vs. Kwesi on purpose out of an attempt at fairness.  And your response is "Well...I don't know about the other 30 teams....".  "Let me cherry pick an argument about pass rushers on Green Bay" (And ignore 3/5 of an OL, an entire WR room, 6 defensive starters....like....WTF?)  C'mon man.  

I've even said I'm not at a point where I fire him yet.  I want to see the 10 picks we have next year and how they're used.  I'm just not living a fairy tale where the prior results are anything other than a failure.  That's a fact.  That's reality.  This alternate reality you're living is fine for you.  Enjoy.  Stop trying to pretend you can rationally defend it.

I think at this point, we're just talking past ourselves and it's both annoying and unhelpful. How about this - the Viking draft results from 2022-2025 do not make me worry about the Vikings ability to draft in 2026. Would you agree that that is a reasonable opinion that someone can have, even if you, personally, don't?

[TheLeviathan]

4 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I think at this point, we're just talking past ourselves and it's both annoying and unhelpful. How about this - the Viking draft results from 2022-2025 do not make me worry about the Vikings ability to draft in 2026. Would you agree that that is a reasonable opinion that someone can have, even if you, personally, don't?

I think it just becomes circular. I think any fair-minded analysis of the results is, at best, that the team went from abject failure to uncertain.

So, could you be hopeful that the current uncertainty leaves open the possibility of good results?  Sure.  Would that person have any rational, evidenced-based reason for that optimism?  Absolutely not.  All rational, evidence-based analysis is going to conclude that the Vikings have drafted poorly.  

You're entitled to an opinion based on optimism.  Where opinions like that run into trouble is when they try to argue against evidence with their optimism.  It's faith vs. fact.  Faith away!  Just don't try to drag that opinion into the realm of fact.

[gunnarthor]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

All rational, evidence-based analysis is going to conclude that the Vikings have drafted poorly.  

You're entitled to an opinion based on optimism.  Where opinions like that run into trouble is when they try to argue against evidence with their optimism.  It's faith vs. fact.  Faith away!  Just don't try to drag that opinion into the realm of fact.

I posted a few links that showed the results of draft picks based on where they were picked. Fact. Those facts showed that the Viking draft results weren't out of line with reasonable expectations. Fact. 

You've posted a few times claiming that the Bears and Packers drafted better based on the % of players on their roster that were picked in the draft - while the # of players on the roster is a true fact, it doesn't make the statement true, it's opinion. 

You've also claimed that they got better players from the draft so we should conclude that they drafted better. That is also opinion that very deliberately disregards the number of high picks those teams have had compared to the Vikings. 

The reason I'm optimistic about the Vikings is because we have a GM who has shown ability to create a strong roster and coaching staff. He's not a one-trick pony, he's done great job with the cap and used the draft to add talent and also used free agency, undrafted free agents, and stealing players from practice squads. He's moved on from mistakes quickly, hired and fired people to improve the situation. His detractors want to focus on one thing - the draft - and not accept that his results are in the range of normal results for the picks he had. 

[TheLeviathan]

29 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I posted a few links that showed the results of draft picks based on where they were picked. Fact. Those facts showed that the Viking draft results weren't out of line with reasonable expectations. Fact. 

You've posted a few times claiming that the Bears and Packers drafted better based on the % of players on their roster that were picked in the draft - while the # of players on the roster is a true fact, it doesn't make the statement true, it's opinion. 

You've also claimed that they got better players from the draft so we should conclude that they drafted better. That is also opinion that very deliberately disregards the number of high picks those teams have had compared to the Vikings. 

The reason I'm optimistic about the Vikings is because we have a GM who has shown ability to create a strong roster and coaching staff. He's not a one-trick pony, he's done great job with the cap and used the draft to add talent and also used free agency, undrafted free agents, and stealing players from practice squads. He's moved on from mistakes quickly, hired and fired people to improve the situation. His detractors want to focus on one thing - the draft - and not accept that his results are in the range of normal results for the picks he had. 

I'm just going to edit this and tap out.  I'm arguing with a position that holds Blackmon (cut) and Ingram (Benched and dumped) are "hits".  This isn't worth arguing about.

[gunnarthor]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

This is a completely disingenuous argument.  Full stop.

You posted two links with vague historical data and no actual connection or analysis relevant to the Vikings drafts the last four years.  None.

Worse, despite the fact that you lazily posted two links with no analysis at all, you attack my actual analysis unfairly.  I posted both the number of players on the roster as a percent as well as the roles those players had as starters vs. role players.  When I did that analysis I also included full context of the significance of the players, the team draft positions, and the total picks. Would you like an analysis of how many pro bowlers those teams have drafted since 2022?  (Hint, ain't gonna help your argument)  How about games started?  (I mean, if personal argument humiliation is a kink of yours I can do that)  Snap count?  Where would you like my actual analysis to go deeper vs. your paper thin link copying?

Oh, and let's throw one more thing out there, if your only defense is "those teams made more picks than us"  Gee....whomever would we look at for an explanation for that?

By all means, give us a breakdown and analysis like I did for my argument.  Let's see the actual, concrete facts.  

???

"Vague historical data"? Like, here's an analysis of draft results over twenty years to show realistic expectations and you think it's not helpful to see if the Viking draft results have been reasonable? I went through all the picks they made, by round, and showed that they seemed to be above historical returns based on where they were taken. Not sure what more one can do there. 

You didn't do analysis. You picked a few facts to draw conclusions the facts didn't support. Packers have more players on their roster who they drafted than the Vikings does not mean that they are better at drafting. It just means they have more players on their roster that they drafted. That's all that means. It literally takes nothing else into context. 

But you actually make it more dishonest. You give the Packers credit for two starting defensive linemen and a rotational piece but then constantly claim that under your analysis, Turner is a bust of a draft pick proving Kwesi can't draft. I mean it's pretty obvious your bias is showing. 

I honestly have no idea how to get through this wall you've created. Like, I literally said that his drafts haven't been as bad as folks are freaking out about and compared them to historical draft results to prove that point, which it did.

 

**As to trading picks, I actually think it's really interesting. We have a GM who is willing to add talent by throwing picks which Speilman didn't do much of (some, he gave up a first for Bradford and traded up to get Bridgewater). Philosophically, I'm actually really interested in this going forward. We've done a pretty good job of finding undrafted free agent talent to overcome loss of picks that it seems an intriguing way to add talent to the roster. Let's see what continues to happen. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

All right, let's go through this. I said his draft results aren't as bad as people are freaking out about and I think I'm right. YMMV. But you have to be able to define what a good pick is or is it just star/bust? I don't think it's reasonable to think a 7th rounder and a 1st rounder should be compared equally. Here are a few articles about hit rates based on round and position. Your success by pick changes pretty rapidly - a player picked 15th overall has a 60% chance of being a "hit" (arbitrary definition) while a player being picked at the end of the first round drops to 50%. It also depends on position, with OL outperforming and DB and Edges under performing. So the Vikes picks - 

1 - Cine, Addison, Turner, McCarthy, and Jackson. One player busted, one player hit. The jury is still out on McCarthy and Jackson. Some people on this site are calling Turner a bust. I can't fathom that. He's playing a lot in a complex defensive scheme despite playing the same spot as Greenard and Gink. I also think this is a good example of how hard it is to grade players. I posted a video of Chase Daniels breaking down JJ's performance against the Ravens in this thread and he specifically called out Jackson for having a bad game. PFF on the other hand had Jackson as the 4th best offensive player. I think that is a problem with Turner. He seems to be doing the stuff that the coaches want and playing well as part of a good defensive rotation, including a bunch of starts this year. I don't see how anyone can say that's a bust. He's not an all-pro but solid starter type in his second year seems miles away from bust. And if you want to credit the Packers for Van Ness, Walker, and Wyatt, Turner isn't a bust. 

2 - Ingram and Booth. Ingram was basically a day one starter. That's a hit. Booth was a miss. 1-2 on picks is better than the average.

3 - Asamoth, Blackmon, Felton. Felton is still too early on but is a good ST but hasn't broken in as a receiver. Asamoth is a bust. Blackmon is a hit. 1-2 w/TBD seems better than avg.

4 - Evans, Ward and Jackson. Jackson passed away so bust. Evans also a bust. But what is the realistic expectation for a fourth rounder? Ward has played well on ST for three years. For the 134th pick in the draft, is that good? If yes, 1-3, if no, 0-3. Average odds of 4th round DB becoming consistent starter is about 10%. 

5 - Otomewo, Chandler, Roy, Hall, TID. Probably four busts with TID still to be determined. 

6 - Lowe, Nailor, Rouse, Reichard, King, Bartholomew. Nailor seems like a hit. Same with Reichard. Rouse is depth but nothing else so probably a bust. King and Bartholomew are still TBD but probably will be busts, realistically.  

7 - Muse, McBride, Jurgens, Rodriguez. Two busts but I think Jurgens and Rodriguez are hits for being 7th round picks. 

Undrafted guys and practice squad pick ups - Redmond, Pace, Brosmer, Jackson, Price. If these guys were 6/7 round picks, does it change your opinion of the drafts? If it does, you shouldn't be complaining. 

So I think those draft results are better than others do especially considering how few picks were in the 1/2 rounds - and obviously JJ's development will be the most important part. I think having only seven 1/2 round picks over five years will make your drafts look worse than they are. It's also worth taking a moment to see if the draft was a bad pick or just didn't work out. This year the Jags traded up to get Hunter. He's supposed to be all-world and game changer, playing offense and defense. He's now on the IR. If he's done (and he isn't), were the Jags stupid to make that pick or was it a smart pick that didn't work out? Cine was expected to be the third safety and not start right away with us. He then had his ankle break out of his skin and never became what was expected. Bad pick, yes but did it make sense and not work out?

1 - KAM has 1 1st round pick currently playing like a first round pick.  Turner, despite everything you throw out there, is not playing like a guy that based on the draft capital to acquire, was a borderline Top 10 pick.  JJM is currently playing like one of the worst QBs in football, and a guy that probably shouldn't even be a backup.  That's 20% hits currently.  Could that change in the future?  Sure, both Turner and JJM could turn into competent players, or even stars.  But we're not here to discuss what KAM's draft record might be in the future, it's what is his draft record now, and right now, it's bad.

2 - Ingram was a bad day 1 starter, to the point the team had to pull a guy more or less out of retirement.  Twice.  That's not a hit.  To be a hit, the player has to actually be accretive to team success, and Ingram was not.  That's 0% hits.

3 - Blackmon is not a hit simply because he got good once he went somewhere else.  He was bad/injured while here.  Whether Blackmon failed here because he wasn't developmentally ready, or the coaching didn't work, or some other reason, KAM's job is to draft players that help the Vikings win games, not players that improve once they move on.  Felton was so bad that the Vikings panic traded a 4th for a washed Thielen only days before the season started, because he clearly couldn't be trusted to be a #3.  Again, maybe Felton gets better, and becomes a Nailor; but Nailor was a 6th.  3rd round picks who only play on ST are busts.  That's 0% hits.

4 - Again, you shouldn't need to spend 4th round picks on ST players.  They took Ward despite having Smith, Metellus, and Bynum already on the roster, and having drafted Cine just the prior year.  Feels silly to draft a guy who best case scenario was a 4th safety (assuming KAM knew Cine was done going into 2023).  That's 0% hits

5 - I'll give him some credit for TID--a 5th round rookie playing on 20% of the defensive snaps is acceptable.  It's not great, but it's acceptable.  That's 20% hits.

6 - Nailor is acceptable, Reichard is an emphatic hit.  That's 30% hits.

7 - I'll agree that LDR is a good pick, and Jurgens is an acceptable one.  That's 50% hits.

Add it all up, and KAM has hit on 6 players out of the 27 he's drafted.  That's 22% hits, and means he adds 1.5 hits (which by the way, doesn't mean star or even solid regular, based on round value) per draft.  Assuming 25 starters, that means it would take KAM 16+ drafts to acquire enough hits to fill out just his starting roster.

Also, KAM has only had 4 drafts, so the 7 first/second round picks is only one less than he would have had if he hadn't moved around at all, and just stayed put.  Worth noting that he's also only currently hit on 1 out of his 18 picks in the first 5 rounds; again, this could change, and if the change is JJM and Turner becoming pro bowlers, then it's probably ok that the hit rate only goes up to 3 out of 18, because the positional value is so great.  But by any metric that actually values contribution to the 2025 team, KAM is just awful.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Packers have more players on their roster who they drafted than the Vikings does not mean that they are better at drafting. It just means they have more players on their roster that they drafted.

This is one of the more flabbergasting things I've ever read.  Would you also say "That lawyer wins more cases than me, but he's not a better lawyer, he just wins more cases"?  Or "That hitter has a higher OPS than this other hitter, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter"?

The point of drafting is to acquire cheap talent for your team.  The Packers undeniably have acquired more cheap talent via the draft than the Vikings, which is why the Vikings have had to fill 75% of their roster with post draft players they signed off the street.  Unless you're telling me that KAM's preferred way to build a team is to spend on past prime (or soon to be) players, rather than not spend on ascending players.

[Cap'n Piranha]

I'll close this thread by saying that Gunnar's "KAM is actually good at drafting" is 2025's version of my 2024 "I'm not sure KOC is actually an elite offensive mind".  I'd like to think that I'm being a bit vindicated this year, so we'll see what happens with Gunnar's hill he's dying on.  I do empathize--it's not the most fun when the entire board disagrees with you.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

This is one of the more flabbergasting things I've ever read.  Would you also say "That lawyer wins more cases than me, but he's not a better lawyer, he just wins more cases"?  Or "That hitter has a higher OPS than this other hitter, but that doesn't mean he's a better hitter"?

The point of drafting is to acquire cheap talent for your team.  The Packers undeniably have acquired more cheap talent via the draft than the Vikings, which is why the Vikings have had to fill 75% of their roster with post draft players they signed off the street.  Unless you're telling me that KAM's preferred way to build a team is to spend on past prime (or soon to be) players, rather than not spend on ascending players.

The part I want to point out is that if we use the same flimsy analysis of "hits" and apply it to our division rivals.....the Packers are drafting gods.  The Bears are super competent.  The Lions deserve a monument.  They're on a historical bender of drafting awesomeness.  All of them!  They're whomping those links by 40, 50% in some cases!  

I guess it is possible that all three of those teams are that god-like.  It's just highly unlikely.  Almost like the analysis is purposely skewed rather than objective.  Part of me wants to pull up games that were started, snap counts, awards, and counting stats to show just how preposterous of a blowout it is.  But the reality is that this isn't a rational conversation.  I'm trying to talk someone out of an article of faith and no amount of reason is going to make that case.

I give Kwesi a B for free agency. I'd like to see him get another year, probably two.  I just live on Earth 616 and his draft history blows.  Any argument to the contrary is literal nonsense.