Story inside the story

The Vikings have only hit on about 30% of their first round picks in the last 10 years, I don't see the big risk. 

I can't argue with that.

what if they view Caleb, Daniels and Maye as top 5 picks? What if they view Nix, McCarthy and Pennix as late first prospects? If the top 3 are gone by 11 do we just take one from the second group at 11?

So you fear the unknowns? Ifs, buts, and maybes is the old saying that rings the dinner bell.

I'll counter your fears for you.

There's no cost for intrinsic draft picks! No cost, zero, nada, nil, zilch.

What cost is there of the unknowns other then the fear. Failure? Nope that's where they are now. Its called football purgatory. Being risk adverse, yes that's more like it. Why risk being mediocre or worse. That's what's been going on for eons. So by all means let's keep driving the same fear bus instead of you know, something different.

Ah yeah, there it is yet again, the guy "might" be there at 11 anyway. I give that about 0.001%. So let's just hang on that fear. That will definitely get the guy they covet.

I guess you're not risk adverse after all. You actually want the strategy with the most risk. Sit, hope and pray.

Oh boy, the next ones a real doozy. The guy they could, maybe have gotton at 11 would be better. Now we're really in fear mongering mode.

I'll let you in on a little secret. There's absolutely no guarantees. The risk is in every corner of the box. They could move up and fail or succeed, they could trade back and fail or succeed, they could stay put and fail or succeed, they could fail or succeed for 10 years straight by doing any of the above. You can't live in fear of the unknowns. You're back to being risk adverse.

I actually see less risk in the approach of everyone being on the same page way before draft day. That doesn't eliminate failure nor does it prevent success. It shows everyone is good with the plan in place. I don't see what has led up to this point of them setting on their hands being risk adverse or negatively impulsive or hell bent. I see much the same approach as the Chiefs getting Mahomes. The risk vs reward point is there in the same aspect. The success and failure yet to be proven.

On to the number 3 fear. The portion of this fear is forgetting one key element to start with. The player themselves. If you know your target won't be there at a later pick the number 3 fear is totally shot because you never got the target. If they identified a player they have to move up to obtain then do so. The entire risk is not getting the target not the draft spot. Those are just numbers.

So this leads to the marginally better aspect. A reason any team moves up is they feel the target is more than marginally better. This is where your head is stuck and can't see the trees through the forest. Your mentality or line of thinking stops at the intersection of the there's no better players even if they identified one as such. That has no bearing on the future success or failure it's how they view the prospects. Again, there's 0.001% of people that see it as 1 to 6 QBs are so close it doesn't matter, just pick the flavor of the month all will be OK. What is being overlooked by some is if they targeted a guy go get him and don't piss in the winds of fear.

I don't go with the pundits on their order for this reason. They base players on a totally different concept then teams should. It's system fits for me when I look at players, not high profile names alone at any position. When the target is getting the best QB that they identify and have to get do what it takes as long as its within reason. No one here is OK with a Walker trade. Common sense is still in the building.

Unlikely scenario is what you're outlining not slapnut19

What plan traded up for a QB? The Bills, Chiefs, Packers, Ravens, Eagles in modern era.