How many idiots does it take to make a bad draft pick?

My answer: one.

On the other hand, it takes a lot of idiots to make a good draft pick.

And at the heart of this discussion are Jimmy Clausen and Colt McCoy and why I'm OK with the Vikings not drafting either one of them, even with their pressing long-term needs at quarterback.

Confused? Good! Now, let me explain.

First, when I say "good" or "bad" draft pick, I mean that a player was drafted lower (good) or higher (bad) than he probably should have been. By this definition, Peyton Manning wasn't a good draft pick. He was picked #1 overall, which was probably about right. The same goes for Adrian Peterson, who was the #7 overall pick, and could arguably be called the #7 best player in the league right now. Similarly, Sam Manuel, the last pick of the 1996 draft who never played a game in the NFL, wasn't a "bad" pick -- he was picked right about where he should have been.

Now consider someone like Troy Williamson. #7 overall, has done squat in his NFL career...clearly a "bad" pick. On the flip side, there's the #199 pick in the 2000 draft, Tom Brady. He was a "good" draft pick.

Most teams probably had Williamson much lower on their draft boards than #7. But the Vikings, thinking themselves "smarter" than everyone else, had him pegged very high and chose him with the #7 overall pick. In other words, it can be argued that 31 of 32 NFL teams were "smart" about Williamson, and it only took one "idiot" team to overdraft him and make him a "bad" pick.

Now, look at Brady. Every NFL team passed on hi, multiple times. Clearly, this was not a good decision. The Patriots finally picked him -- making them the "smart" team and the other 31 teams "idiots." Even so, Brady is an anomaly. 6th-round draft picks don't normally go on to Hall-of-Fame careers. Nobody was commenting on how Brady was a "steal" when he was drafted. 30 of 31 teams didn't even want him on their roster, and the Patriots didn't even care to expend a pick on him until the draft was nearly over.

Clearly, the Patriots did well by drafting Brady. But it's not like they possessed some kind of prescient knowledge that he would go on to the type of career he did. If they did, they would have drafted him much earlier. At most, they were hoping for a capable backup and, perhaps someday down the road, Drew Bledsoe's replacement.

All of which brings us back to Clausen and McCoy. The Vikings could have drafted either player but chose not to do so. Instead, Clausen went #48 overall to the Panthers, while McCoy slid to the third round and was picked in the #85 slot by the Browns. Along with Sam Bradford and Tim Tebow, who were taken before the Vikings' first draft pick, both were considered potential future franchise quarterbacks. All four were featured extensively on ESPN, including a "QB school" run by Jon Gruden, where he broke down each QB.

My question is: If they're so good, how could every NFL team pass on them -- some multiple times?

Yes, not every team needed a quarterback, but I count about 17 possible picks before Clausen went and 25 before McCoy was drafted by teams that could have potentially gone after a QB (including several by Cleveland before the team took McCoy). If these two players are so good and were, according to many draft "experts," undervalued and "steals" by the teams that picked them, then why did it take so long for them to be drafted? I clearly didn't spend weeks breaking down each player, but I came away from his session with Gruden unimpressed. Both might be decent QBs -- and certainly better than what the Vikings look to have under center in 2011 -- but I don't think we "missed out" on either player. Chances are that both of them were "decent" draft picks, picked right about where they should have been.

(And only time will tell if the Denver Broncos were smarter than the likely 31 of 32 NFL teams who didn't think Tim Tebow was worthy of a first-round pick. Given those odds, I'd be pessimistic about Tebow's chances.)

An Emmy-winning performance

While there's little outright complaining, there seems to be an undercurrent of mild grousing about the Vikings "only" beating the Lions 27-10 on Sunday and not putting the game out of reach until the 4th quarter. In fact, it seems like the Vikings always struggle with the Lions, despite coming out on top in each of the last five meetings between the teams.

My opinion is that a 17-point win is a 17-point win. The Vikings played just fine in Sunday's game, even if it took a while to make the game a pseudo-laugher. Consider some of the other games this past week that matched two teams where one was thought to be clearly superior than the other and yet barely eked out a win:

Miami 25, Tampa Bay 23
New Orleans 28, St. Louis 23

and a few that rank as outright upsets:

Washington 27, Denver 17
Cincinnati 18, Pittsburgh 12
Carolina 28, Atlanta 19
Green Bay 17, Dallas 7

And arguably the New England/Indianapolis and San Diego/Philadelphia games. Against those, I'll take a 27-10 victory any day.

* After the Vikings, my favorite three offenses to watch this season are, in order: Miami (love the Wildcat), New Orleans (for its sheer firepower), and -- wait for it -- Cleveland.

Watching the Browns' "offense" is like watching a good disaster movie, but without the obligatory hot chick. (I will still watch The Day After Tomorrow just to see Emmy Rossum.) I honestly think that Brady Quinn still has some potential in the league and could be a nice pickup for a team (possibly a team in purple) in a couple years when he finishes out his rookie contract, but the combination of terrible play calling (even MNF resident cheerleader Jon Gruden was criticizing the 827th one-yard route the Browns called last night), terrible receivers, and terrible offensive line play give him zero chance to succeed. Until that changes, the Browns offer better comedy than anything Jay Leno can provide on late-night TV.

* 20 carries for 41 yards Thursday for Matt Forte, making his season average 3.4 yards per carry. Good thing Jay Cutler will improve the running game in Chicago!

* Sorry, I'm still thinking of Emmy Rossum. I have to go now...

Showdown

I hear there's some big football game tonight. I don't know, have you guys heard anything about this?

All kidding aside, I'll be turning ESPN on at about 8:37 p.m., and not a minute earlier, so as to avoid the HYPE (there's so much, it uses capital letters) that will be spewing out incessantly all day long. Here's hoping that I won't have to mute the TV when Official Cheerleader of Monday Night Football Jon Gruden is canonizing Brett Favre.

Short post today, as I don't want to get too heavily into the HYPE machine myself. I'll have more thoughts and analysis tomorrow, which will be the beginning of the 27-day countdown until Brett Favre goes to Green Bay to play the Packers at Lambeau. Then we can all relax.

Monday night reactions

I'd say that was actually a little better than a b), with Brett Favre showing his usual zing on passes while not making any critical mistakes. His sacks were largely the fault of the offensive line and his one near-interception came about because of a great play by a Houston defender.

Naturally, however, Favre's ex-QB coach and MNF Official Cheerleader Jon Gruden couldn't assign any blame to Favre for a second-quarter pass that glanced off the fingertips of Percy Harvin in the back of the end zone. Gruden twice said that Harvin had to catch the "perfectly thrown" ball, while ignoring the possibility that, instead of Harvin reaching out another three inches, perhaps Favre could have thrown it three inches less. Truthfully, neither player was at fault -- it was a well-thrown ball and Harvin was grabbed ever-so-slightly by the defender -- but it's not like Harvin's play was an egregious error by the receiver.

Then there was "the hit." There was doubtless no malicious intent on Favre's part, but there are a few problematic things to consider:

1) “I will be 40 years old in October and (was) weed-eating 13 days ago,” Favre said. “I wasn’t thinking about throwing blocks.”

Putting aside any obvious "weed" jokes, this is exactly what I don't want to hear from Favre or anyone associated with bringing him in. Why weren't you in training camp 13 days ago? Were you not thinking about avoiding interceptions? Would you use that if you threw one? Let the media come up with the excuses, Brett.

2) As the analysts pointed out, near-40-year-old quarterbacks shouldn't be throwing a block in a preseason game, especially when they supposedly have cracked ribs. Oh yeah, he's just having fun out there.

So, yeah. Three quarters of preseason football against a mediocre defense isn't enough to get me fully on the Favre bandwagon, but I might be holding back the trigger on the TNT to blow the whole thing up. This week.