Peter King does it in his MMBQ column. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/21/nfl- ... uarterback
Basically, he finds that the top half of the 1st round of the draft was pretty weak, and easily bested by the bottom half. Thanks to Rick for getting three picks in that zone.
King's ratings of 1st round picks in the 2013 draft:
That's cool and all, but I feel like we still haven't given enough time to really tell how all of these players are going to pan out.
For instance, Sheldon Richardson still has time to completely be out of the league in two years. I'm sure there are other players who will really improve throughout this season and the next one.
A great example of that is how much Everson Griffen grew when given a starting job. For the first two years, he was largely invisible. His next two years he was a rotation guy. Now he's arguably one of the best in the league.
Thank you for posting, but for me, I'd rather reflect on the 2011 draft and have a bit more of an honest review.
This is why I've liked Spielman's drafting since 2012. Bringing in Harrison, Kalil (who looks like he's turning back to the pro bowl form), Rhodes, Floyd, Barr, Teddy, Waynes (who the verdict is still out on) and Kendricks. Of course he's had a few misses the past couple years like Patterson but I still don't understand why people continue to complain about him. I feel like those draft classes since 2012 are finally starting to come together. Remember that when we drafted in 2012, we were bottom of the barrel so obviously we werent going to see an immediate turn around.
Also, Desmond Trufant ranked over Rhodes?? I would argue that.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy wrote:This is why I've liked Spielman's drafting since 2012. Bringing in Harrison, Kalil (who looks like he's turning back to the pro bowl form), Rhodes, Floyd, Barr, Teddy, Waynes (who the verdict is still out on) and Kendricks. Of course he's had a few misses the past couple years like Patterson but I still don't understand why people continue to complain about him. I feel like those draft classes since 2012 are finally starting to come together. Remember that when we drafted in 2012, we were bottom of the barrel so obviously we werent going to see an immediate turn around.
Also, Desmond Trufant ranked over Rhodes?? I would argue that.
People complain about him because the Vikings have remained mediocre. How much of that is his fault is obviously debatable. He faced a big rebuilding project after the Childress era so it wasn't reasonable to expect an ultra-fast turnaround but people are going to complain until the Vikes become a consistent winner. That's just human nature and Spielman has a big, fat target on his back because of his role with the team.
As for the 2013 draft... that list is interesting (thanks, John) but I'm with DK on this one: I don't think enough time has passed to really tell how players from that draft class are going to pan out
Mothman wrote:
People complain about him because the Vikings have remained mediocre. How much of that is his fault is obviously debatable. He faced a big rebuilding project after the Childress era so it wasn't reasonable to expect an ultra-fast turnaround but people are going to complain until the Vikes become a consistent winner. That's just human nature and Spielman has a big, fat target on his back because of his role with the team.
As for the 2013 draft... that list is interesting (thanks, John) but I'm with DK on this one: I don't think enough time has passed to really tell how players from that draft class are going to pan out
But he also started from scratch in 2012 when it came to talent on this roster. I could've told you we would be mediocre for a few years following that draft. Not many rookies turn your entire team around. They have to gain experience to show how good they really are. It's part of the building process.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy wrote:But he also started from scratch in 2012 when it came to talent on this roster. I could've told you we would be mediocre for a few years following that draft. Not many rookies turn your entire team around. They have to gain experience to show how good they really are. It's part of the building process.
I understand that but you asked why people complain about him so I provided an answer.
I remain on the fence about Spielman overall but I don't think he's above criticism or undeserving of some criticism. I certainly don't accept the idea that he "started from scratch" in 2012. I realize he didn't wield the full authority of an NFL GM until that year but there were pieces in place at the time, some of them put there by Spielman himself (or presumably with his input as part of the dreaded "triangle"). It wasn't as if that was his first year with the team and he was beginning at square one. He's been with the Vikings since May of 2006, first as VP of Pro Personnel and then as GM. I believe Childress had a great deal of influence during his tenure but Spielman wasn't playing a minor role over those years and Childress has been gone since 2010. That's 4+ years, most of them mediocre or worse. I thought the team faced a massive rebuilding project after Childress' departure so I'm not surprised they've struggled to win with any consistency over that time but nevertheless, they have struggled.
Spielman has made some undeniably good decisions but there are enough bad or questionable choices in his history to make it pretty easy to understand why people criticize him. This is year 5 of the post-Childress era and if I'm not mistaken, Spielman has now overseen 9 drafts for the Vikings. It's his 4th year as GM. They've had enough time to build a winner and now they need to start winning more consistently. If they don't, he's going to continue to receive criticism and justifiably so.
Mothman wrote:
I understand that but you asked why people complain about him so I provided an answer.
I remain on the fence about Spielman overall but I don't think he's above criticism or undeserving of some criticism. I certainly don't accept the idea that he "started from scratch" in 2012. I realize he didn't wield the full authority of an NFL GM until that year but there were pieces in place at the time, some of them put there by Spielman himself (or presumably with his input as part of the dreaded "triangle"). It wasn't as if that was his first year with the team and he was beginning at square one. He's been with the Vikings since May of 2006, first as VP of Pro Personnel and then as GM. I believe Childress had a great deal of influence during his tenure but Spielman wasn't playing a minor role over those years and Childress has been gone since 2010. That's 4+ years, most of them mediocre or worse. I thought the team faced a massive rebuilding project after Childress' departure so I'm not surprised they've struggled to win with any consistency over that time but nevertheless, they have struggled.
Spielman has made some undeniably good decisions but there are enough bad or questionable choices in his history to make it pretty easy to understand why people criticize him. This is year 5 of the post-Childress era and if I'm not mistaken, Spielman has now overseen 9 drafts for the Vikings. It's his 4th year as GM. They've had enough time to build a winner and now they need to start winning more consistently. If they don't, he's going to continue to receive criticism and justifiably so.
You can name a lot of bad picks by a lot of "good GMs" too. There were some of his picks I wasn't happy about either but since 2012, I think there's been more good than bad.-
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy wrote:You can name a lot of bad picks by a lot of "good GMs" too. There were some of his picks I wasn't happy about either but since 2012, I think there's been more good than bad.-
Of course, bad picks are inevitable. That's not the point and neither is whether he's made more good draft picks than bad. The point is to build a winning team. Spielman's responsibilities as GM extend well beyond the draft.
The Vikes won 10 games in his first season as GM and the team followed that up with two straight losing seasons. He's had 3 offseasons in his current position. Two games into his 4th season, the Vikings aren't a demonstrably better team than they were when he took over. I realize you consider them a better team, and so do many other people, but they haven't proven themselves a better team.
I'm not trying to bash Spielman here. I'm just trying to illustrate for you that people complain about him because there are actual reasons to complain.
Mothman wrote:
Of course, bad picks are inevitable. That's not the point and neither is whether he's made more good draft picks than bad. The point is to build a winning team. Spielman's responsibilities as GM extend well beyond the draft.
The Vikes won 10 games in his first season as GM and the team followed that up with two straight losing seasons. He's had 3 offseasons in his current position. Two games into his 4th season, the Vikings aren't a demonstrably better team than they were when he took over. I realize you consider them a better team, and so do many other people, but they haven't proven themselves a better team.
I'm not trying to bash Spielman here. I'm just trying to illustrate for you that people complain about him because there are actual reasons to complain.
Well I don't think you can say they are better or worse right now if you're basing it off of this season. We had 1 bad game and 1 good game with 14 more to go
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Pondering Her Percy wrote:Well I don't think you can say they are better or worse right now if you're basing it off of this season. We had 1 bad game and 1 good game with 14 more to go
As I said, they aren't a demonstrably better team. If they were, we would be able to say they're better right now.
Mothman wrote:
As I said, they aren't a demonstrably better team. If they were, we would be able to say they're better right now.
Ahhh I'm not sure about that. 2 games is a pretty small sample size. The Seahawks, Colts and Eagles are all 0-2. Does that mean they are bad teams now? Or considerably weaker than previous years? You really don't know. I still say at least 2 out of the 3 make the playoffs this year. I feel like you could make this decision at about week 7 or so. Not now. Way too early
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
