Each of these teams had great drafts.

 

Eagles

Bengals

Chargers

Rams

Cardinals

I exclude all teams in the top 10 because they are expected to have good picks when they pick early in every round. So out of your list the Bengals and Chargers had great drafts, the others were where they should be.

Viking? Three first round pick ain't nothing to sneeze at.

I agree with those. I'd also put Minnesota up there because of the 3 first round picks.

I agree with those. I'd also put Minnesota up there because of the 3 first round picks.

How did Minnesota get three first round picks?

How did Minnesota get three first round picks?

They traded up with somebody (Patriots, I think?) to get Patterson. They had two to begin with by virtue of the Harvin trade.

Vikings were doing great until they gave up too much to take a WR who can't run routes. They could have stayed put and still picked up a very good WR in the 2nd rd. Patterson fits exactly what they had athletically with Percy Harvin but it seems they went out of their way to get him and I'd say they could have added two WRs who were more prepared to contribute this year (WR and KR/PR) with the picks they gave up plus they have one more draftee on the roster...CB?

The Vikings probably had the best draft overall, the top 3, but also Dawkins in the 7th? That was a good pick as well.

I'm not sold on the Vikings moving that much to get a question mark at WR. Many think he wasn't even the best WR at UT last year.

I'm not sold on the Vikings moving that much to get a question mark at WR. Many think he wasn't even the best WR at UT last year.

He wasn't, but he was the best deep/speed threat.

I'm not sold on the Vikings moving that much to get a question mark at WR. Many think he wasn't even the best WR at UT last year.

I am just thinking in terms of picks without reaches (from where they were projected). I actually need to see who had the best draft based on original draft ranking vs actual draft slot.

I am just thinking in terms of picks without reaches (from where they were projected). I actually need to see who had the best draft based on original draft ranking vs actual draft slot.

 

 

Fair enough but I still think Patterson was over-rated by the so-called draft gurus based on his raw athletic ability. Then when you listen to them on their final analysis (talking ESPN) they are all wondering if Patterson can develop into a good pro WR. When Todd McShay says he disappears for 30 or 40 plays that's a bit of a concern for a first round pick...one he had rated there. Regarding the Vikings draft we have to keep in mind they essentially gave up picking a good MLB prospect and good Wr prospect to get Patterson.

They got hosed on that trade. Way to much for a person with a high % of bust potential. NE took them out back and beat them with the ugly stick

Fair enough but I still think Patterson was over-rated by the so-called draft gurus based on his raw athletic ability. Then when you listen to them on their final analysis (talking ESPN) they are all wondering if Patterson can develop into a good pro WR. When Todd McShay says he disappears for 30 or 40 plays that's a bit of a concern for a first round pick...one he had rated there. Regarding the Vikings draft we have to keep in mind they essentially gave up picking a good MLB prospect and good Wr prospect to get Patterson.

 

Eh, Denny Green would've called that a "Bonus Pick" anyway.

The Vikings got 3 of the top rated prospects at their positions. Floyd the number 1 3 tech DT when they play cover2 solid. Rhodes depending on who you listen to was top 2 or 3 at CB and Patterson again depending on flavor was 1 or 2 on WR lists. If the Bears had selected 2 of these guys at 20 they wouldn't be considered a reach.