
It's partially true and partially an extreme cop-out to say we can't evaluate how teams perform in the NFL draft until a few years down the road.
What's true is that we don't know how college players in their early 20s will look and perform in their mid-20s after having time to develop, grow and learn in an NFL system. We don't know about injuries. We don't know about untapped potential.
But I also think it is more than fair to evaluate a couple of things in the short-term: Did a team appear to get good value based on the consensus about players — as shaky as that might be — going into the draft? And did a team seem to have a good approach to the draft based on its needs and the status relative to the rest of the league?
On these two points, the Vikings are wide open to criticism for this year's draft. My gut instinct was that neither their value nor approach were good.
Some data bears that out. Arif Hasan at Zone Coverage has a nice chart of where the Vikings landed in terms of return on investment as it pertains to the consensus of where players were valued vs. where they were drafted, and the Vikings finished 23rd of 32 teams.
Specifically, as it concerns the offensive line: The Vikings better hope they are right and Pro Football Focus is wrong.
The Vikings eschewed a safe pick at No. 30 overall — an offensive guard to perhaps plug in and start right away in place of the retired Joe Berger. They went instead with cornerback Mike Hughes and then chose tackle Brian O'Neill No. 62 overall. They didn't take another swing at an offensive lineman until the sixth round with guard Colby Gossett, another project.
PFF had this to say about O'Neill, whom they ranked the No. 91 overall prospect: "O'Neill is a terrific athlete for the position and possesses some of the best mirroring ability in the entire class. His punch and play strength are lacking at the moment though, and it's concerning how poorly he performed Senior Bowl week. While there, he won only 27 percent of his reps in 1-on-1 practice."