Will the Vikings trade down?
As it stands right now, I think the Vikings will either take Keldric Faulk or Dillon Thieneman at 18 or trade down big for one of the IDLs.
New England makes some sense. They sit at 31 and need WR, OT and Edge, three positions that have good value at 18, but also positions we likely won't be drafting in the 1st round. Pats were in the Super Bowl last year and could see themselves one impact player away.
Moving all the way from 18 to 31 should get us their 2nd rounder, plus a 5th. Woods, McDonald, Banks or EMW have a lot better value at 31 than they do at 18, and having FIVE picks between 31 and 97, where the value is the flattest in this draft would be a very good thing.
MaroonBells wrote:
Oh hellfire, I don't even want to think about that. No I think the Vikings have a win-now roster, and I think they agree. It would be hard to see them passing on impact talent this year to gift picks to the next GM.
I think if the Vikings felt like they had a win-now roster, they would have ponied up a little bit of money in free agency.
For me, I think they don't feel confident enough in their QBs to be win now. I do agree that they won't be trading for future picks, because I do think that they need to get better now more than thinking long term.
Also, I'm not convinced that many teams will be quick to dole out 2027 firsts for any player near where we will be.
Mattyman wrote:They say what?.....50% of first round picks are busts? Interesting story from about a year ago on recent trends in round 1 of the Draft: https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nfl-draft-trades-what-recent-trends-tell-us-about-first-round-deals
IMO Vikings are gonna have to trade up and down to get the players they want because their needs are known, a shrewd GM will trade in front of them and poach the player the Vikings want. With Lions holding 17th pick they're vulnerable to getting sniped. Lions will trade down to screw a divisional opponent.
I think if you are following this draft and where things may start to play out, I think you trade back at this point. Someone mentioned to get us a 2nd. That would be ideal for this team with how it sits right now. Would rather have more day 2 picks and get as many as you can. It builds the team with very talented younger players. Plus, at 18 there isn't a great selection for need, as I feel Oregon's work out machine will be gone. Trade back and pick one of your DTs that you let go or grab a S or CB. Or grab AJ Haulcy in round 2 and DT round 1. Then Connor Lew with your second 2nd rounder. If you found that deal that you would net a 2nd, the Vikings will take that all day long, even without a GM.
Could look something like this
purplefaithful wrote:
Dont forget about our friends in Motown who pick 17:
Brian Branch (torn Achilles)
Kerby Joseph (knee)Unless the Vikings get a "godfather" type offer or they really believe the later S's are as good?
Draft Theineman at 18 and call it a day
I don't think Thieneman makes it to 18. Cross your fingers EMW does.
medaille wrote:
I think if the Vikings felt like they had a win-now roster, they would have ponied up a little bit of money in free agency.
For me, I think they don't feel confident enough in their QBs to be win now. I do agree that they won't be trading for future picks, because I do think that they need to get better now more than thinking long term.Also, I'm not convinced that many teams will be quick to dole out 2027 firsts for any player near where we will be.
On who? Who were the prize free agents we were clamoring for but didn’t pursue? This was not a robust free agent class for our needs. I think the one exception was at running back, where we reportedly made a competitive offer to Etienne but he chose to say closer to his home in the Bayou. Once he signed in NOLA, Vikings re-signed Aaron Jones and turned their attention to the draft to fill that need.
Could they have bolstered their IDL? Maybe. But at what cost? We still have $22M in Allen and Hargrave money on our books, not to mention the $17M cap hit going to a very average Will Fries. No, this was always going to be a “get right” offseason where we try to mitigate some of last season’s free agency failures.
MaroonBells wrote:
On who? Who were the prize free agents we were clamoring for but didn’t pursue? This was not a robust free agent class for our needs. I think the one exception was at running back, where we reportedly made a competitive offer to Etienne but he chose to say closer to his home in the Bayou. Once he signed in NOLA, Vikings re-signed Aaron Jones and turned their attention to the draft to fill that need.
Could they have bolstered their IDL? Maybe. But at what cost? We still have $22M in Allen and Hargrave money on our books, not to mention the $17M cap hit going to a very average Will Fries. No, this was always going to be a “get right” offseason where we try to mitigate some of last season’s free agency failures.
Signing a vet WR to compete with Felton for WR3 would've been a nice add & wouldn't have cost too much.
My final 2026 draft board.
— Jordan Reid (@Jordan_Reid) April 14, 2026
500 players ranked with round grades.https://t.co/lai4E8eEtK
Reid has 11 first round grades. He’s at least a handful light, but those 1/2 and 2 round grades is a big fat band of prospects.
“Hell is empty and all the devils are here”
Shakespeare
JustInTime wrote:
https://x.com/jordan_reid/status/2044036223140852049?s=46&t=TjjB9Q4BmOwmN74RrrMjoQReid has 11 first round grades. He’s at least a handful light, but those 1/2 and 2 round grades is a big fat band of prospects.
Banks at 46. Too many issues for 18, but he's a sprint to the podium type at 49 for me.
My $ is on Faulk/Thieneman if they stick or Woods/EMW if they trade down...
Not a huge need today, but I sure wish there was a way to get Ponds on the team. He's a dawg and will get the others on that side of the ball barking...
Heart and soul of that IU Defense
Hurry-up Vikings, we ain't getting any younger!
Knucklehead wrote:
Signing a vet WR to compete with Felton for WR3 would've been a nice add & wouldn't have cost too much.
We still might. But it looks like we're going to see how the draft falls first.
VikingzFanPage@vikingzfanpage
Scouts and executives around the NFL view picks 30-70 as the “sweet spot” for finding quality starters, @alec_lewis
mentioned his @AlecLewisShow
Minnesota could look to trade back to stockpile multiple starters: “Just can’t get the idea of trading back out of my mind, and it’s something I’m gonna do a lot of work on before I do my final mock next Monday.”
MaroonBells wrote:
VikingzFanPage@vikingzfanpageScouts and executives around the NFL view picks 30-70 as the “sweet spot” for finding quality starters, @alec_lewis
mentioned his @AlecLewisShowMinnesota could look to trade back to stockpile multiple starters: “Just can’t get the idea of trading back out of my mind, and it’s something I’m gonna do a lot of work on before I do my final mock next Monday.”
that always makes me laugh, shouldnt it be 1-70, or top 70, or how ever you want to say it since whoever you take at 70 could also be taken inside the top 30?
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
JimmyinSD wrote:
that always makes me laugh, shouldnt it be 1-70, or top 70, or how ever you want to say it since whoever you take at 70 could also be taken inside the top 30?
The argument is an efficiency based one. Higher draft picks have higher costs, both in terms of contracts and in terms of draft capital. They are arguing that you can get more talent per cost by trading up/down and getting more picks in that range than you can above it or below it.
medaille wrote:
The argument is an efficiency based one. Higher draft picks have higher costs, both in terms of contracts and in terms of draft capital. They are arguing that you can get more talent per cost by trading up/down and getting more picks in that range than you can above it or below it.
i understand the thought, but the way they express it makes it sound stupid. i would argue that the sweet spot is where ever you find talent that makes a solid contribution in year one. if your scouts like a guy... take him, take the best players available when you have a chance or you will be playing the what if game later, especially when that player is at a widely known position of need. the only way I trade out from taking a player on my board ( especially at a position of need) is if I win the trade. is the reward great enough that if I do miss out on my identified player, that I can stand at the podium and tell our fans that yes we could have had "X", but instead we got "X" value, and then you better hit on those damn picks.
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.