vonstout wrote:Agree with Harvin, but I was disappointed that we had to give up what we did to get him. I live near Madison and have several friends that are Vikes fans. The rumor around here was that his trade value was dropping and he could be had for a second rounder at most. I called one of my good friends when the trade was announced and he said "what did we get, a third rounder?". I think he is a great fit for us, but I think we gave up more than we needed to to get him. I think SF drove the price up. The additional third round pick was too much, IMO.
I thought we would get a flip of second or third rounders in the Flynn trade, but hopefully we can turn the fifth rounders into gold again.
Kind of a Debbie downer type mentality. Based on your thought process we should have let Harvin go to another team so we could keep the 25th pick, 7th and next years 3rd, essentially comparable to trading up to the #20 spot. So would you rather have the 20th pick in this draft or Harvin?
Draft value charts are meaningless in your analysis. It doesn't mean we would be a better team if we had the 1st and 7th or even the 20th pick unless you become a better team because of it and not only is there no guarantee of that but a strong likelihood we would not.
How would you feel if we didn't make the deal and the Niners traded for Harvin and to follow that up we trade up to 20 and grab a guy who sees limited playing time and becomes just a rotational player like many #20 picks do?
You have a very good idea of what you get with Harvin and the draft only provides hope that a player will become that impactful (is that a word?) but realistically an extremely low number actually do. It is very possible that Harvin's career from here forward is more productive than any player coming out of this draft at all. Isn't that worth the 20th pick?
The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.