gunnarthor

Ugh

I don't like that

Or, that

Would be great if we responded with a TD drive of our own now

Yeah, good drive from them although after last week, I'm not ok with them getting away with the false start

Needs to add some touch, for sure

Yeah but he had the right read. He's still learning touch/accuracy but he making the right reads. That's really good.

Addison needs to catch that

JJ missed a couple pretty open throws on thr first drive.

Miami pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory

This is a must win for us so let's say we win it, easily.

Is arch Manning still a top pick for next year?

Yeah, my kids liked vox machina and I watched it with them but it was a bit raunchy for me. I guess I'm getting old. I also showed my wife the Nautilus trailer so we might do the one free week AMC+. 20,000 leagues was the first "big" book I read as a child - a condensed children friendly version, of course. But it always makes me happy so I'm excited for this one.

Sounds like Jets coach Aaron Glenn might be on the hotseat. https://www.profootballnetwork.com/ex-nfl-linebacker-predicts-jets-fire-aaron-glenn/ He was one of the few defense-first coaches hired in the last few years as most teams are looking for offensive head coaches.

??? "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.

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 love how much Packer fans hate the tush-push

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?

My kids are very excited about

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.

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

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?

We're finally on Sandman season 2, it's ok. I think the show has some real highlights but is generally slow. My wife and I are almost thinking about getting the free week of AMC+ to see Nautilus.

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.

Here's another review of JJ. I thought it was interesting that the first thing he said was that the Ravens did a good job on pressing our receivers. I thought Jefferson was upset about how much contact was not being called.