Souhan: Judging Spielman is a wavering process

[Mothman]

A pretty good column from Souhan:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 26051.html

[chicagopurple]

Hard to argue with the article except for the possibility of placing the responsibility for choosing the coaches partially on Spielman also. I have never been very certain WHO has picked our coaches....Is it totally a WIlf call, or is Spielman leading the process?

[saint33]

Hard to argue with the article except for the possibility of placing the responsibility for choosing the coaches partially on Spielman also. I have never been very certain WHO has picked our coaches....Is it totally a WIlf call, or is Spielman leading the process?

The Wilfs had complete control in the hiring of Brad Childress and Leslie Frazier. Spielman was in charge of hiring Mike Zimmer

[losperros]

I like this column a lot. It covers what Spielman's responsibilities are and are not.

Spielman may get the players, but they need to be coached and played right. I think that's been a bit of a problem on offense this year.

[J. Kapp 11]

There's nothing in this column that hasn't been said a hundred times on this board.

I'm convinced that at least 10 people on this board could do these columnists' jobs.

[PurpleMustReign]

There's nothing in this column that hasn't been said a hundred times on this board.

I'm convinced that at least 10 people on this board could do these columnists' jobs.

I'll do it.

[frosted]

There's nothing in this column that hasn't been said a hundred times on this board.

I'm convinced that at least 10 people on this board could do these columnists' jobs.

God, I'd give my left nut to have the chance lol.

...maybe not, but definitely my right

..kidding, but I would give a toe..

[PurpleMustReign]

God, I'd give my left nut to have the chance lol.

...maybe not, but definitely my right

..kidding, but I would give a toe..

I will give my left pinky toe and my right ring toe.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[mansquatch]

I find these columns really funny on one hand and really pathetic on the other. Bill Polian got fired from Indy after the 2011 campaign when Manning was out and the Colts went 2-14. Some GM when your team revolves around one guy and total garbage without him. That is like 13 years of 1st round picks and 2nd round picks and it all added up to that performance without that one guy? But, I digress… The key point is that Souhan is right about the QB being the lynch pin, but again, he refuses to ask the ultimate question: Did Polian or Thompson know that Manning or Rogers would be what they are today or were they lucky? The results of the NFL teams drafting QBs would argue for the latter. So to me this whole franchise QB thing is a really bad way to look at a GM. You are basically saying it is better to be lucky than good and if the guy is unlucky on his QB pick you can him.

On to Spielman:

I’m not sure I’d say the Kalil pick is nearly as much a bust as Ponder. Kalil is no doubt having his worst year as a pro, but, unlike Ponder, Kalil has shown consistent performance in the past. So what is the cause of Kalil’s regression? Is it the league adjusting to him and now he is going through his re-adjustment phase? Is it injury? Is it maybe both? My guess is it is both. Regardless, the talent and ability is there. Now, I will say that while it would be easy to blame the coaches here, I think it is a mutual issue. Part of “the talent” is the mental fortitude to get through the rough patches and compete in the NFL.

This brings us to what is arguably the other big bust in Spielman’s career: CP84. Again, the I’d say we have at least 2 more seasons before we know for sure since CP was raw coming out of college and he plays WR. However, there is a real reason to be skeptical of this guy’s mental capacity. To me that is a failing of the GM if he doesn’t turn the corner just as much as it is the coaching staff.

[J. Kapp 11]

I find these columns really funny on one hand and really pathetic on the other. Bill Polian got fired from Indy after the 2011 campaign when Manning was out and the Colts went 2-14. Some GM when your team revolves around one guy and total garbage without him. That is like 13 years of 1st round picks and 2nd round picks and it all added up to that performance without that one guy? But, I digress… The key point is that Souhan is right about the QB being the lynch pin, but again, he refuses to ask the ultimate question: Did Polian or Thompson know that Manning or Rogers would be what they are today or were they lucky? The results of the NFL teams drafting QBs would argue for the latter. So to me this whole franchise QB thing is a really bad way to look at a GM. You are basically saying it is better to be lucky than good and if the guy is unlucky on his QB pick you can him.

On to Spielman:

I’m not sure I’d say the Kalil pick is nearly as much a bust as Ponder. Kalil is no doubt having his worst year as a pro, but, unlike Ponder, Kalil has shown consistent performance in the past. So what is the cause of Kalil’s regression? Is it the league adjusting to him and now he is going through his re-adjustment phase? Is it injury? Is it maybe both? My guess is it is both. Regardless, the talent and ability is there. Now, I will say that while it would be easy to blame the coaches here, I think it is a mutual issue. Part of “the talent” is the mental fortitude to get through the rough patches and compete in the NFL.

This brings us to what is arguably the other big bust in Spielman’s career: CP84. Again, the I’d say we have at least 2 more seasons before we know for sure since CP was raw coming out of college and he plays WR. However, there is a real reason to be skeptical of this guy’s mental capacity. To me that is a failing of the GM if he doesn’t turn the corner just as much as it is the coaching staff.

Totally agree with your comment that judging a GM solely on the performance of the quarterbacks he drafts is a bad way to evaluate that GM's performance. Obviously, if you strike out continually at the QB position, that's not good, and it'll likely get you fired. But I don't think one GM is necessarily better than other GMs just because, say, an Aaron Rodgers falls into his lap at 22. Plus, I think you have to look at other aspects of the job, as well, including drafts, trades, negotiating salaries, managing the cap, and a whole host of other duties a GM has to perform.

You also have to look at drafts at the other positions. Spielman picks like Anthony Barr, Sharif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes (a product of the Percy Harvin trade, another in the plus column for Rick), Harrison Smith, Robert Blanton, and Josh Robinson are doing really well. Unfortunately, we place so much emphasis on the quarterback position that it's easy to overlook these other guys.

Also agree with you about CP84. I would add, however, that lots of other first-round WRs have ended up as busts. After QB, wide receiver might be the most difficult position to predict. But you're right. Taking Patterson was a risk, given that WR is a fairly intense position mentally, and there were definitely questions about CP's mental acuity. Spielman will eventually have to answer for that pick, either way.

[Mothman]

I find these columns really funny on one hand and really pathetic on the other. Bill Polian got fired from Indy after the 2011 campaign when Manning was out and the Colts went 2-14. Some GM when your team revolves around one guy and total garbage without him. That is like 13 years of 1st round picks and 2nd round picks and it all added up to that performance without that one guy?

I'm not clear on what you're saying above. Are you saying Souhan is wrong to perceive it that way or that everything Polian did added up to a team that was total garbage without one guy?

But, I digress… The key point is that Souhan is right about the QB being the lynch pin, but again, he refuses to ask the ultimate question: Did Polian or Thompson know that Manning or Rogers would be what they are today or were they lucky? The results of the NFL teams drafting QBs would argue for the latter. So to me this whole franchise QB thing is a really bad way to look at a GM. You are basically saying it is better to be lucky than good and if the guy is unlucky on his QB pick you can him.

I agree it's a bad way to look at a GM but I don't think the only two options when it comes to selecting players like Manning and Rodgers are that the GMs who selected them either knew they were getting future greats or were lucky. I suspect the truth lies somewhere on-between those two extremes. They obviously had some idea of the tremendous potential of those QBs based on their college performances, testing, etc. Let's face it, Manning was the son of a good NFL QB and ended up the top pick in the draft for a reason. Polian obviously had more than an inkling he might be drafting a great player but you never know how things will work out and that's where luck comes in (Lady luck, not Andrew Luck!).

I think the best part of that Souhan column was when he asked this simple question:

How long after a general manager drafts a player is he still responsible for that player’s performance?

It's certainly a pertinent question, even when it comes to a guy like Manning. Polian clearly drafted him for his tremendous potential and few would argue that it wasn't a roll of the dice worth taking. Manning was widely perceived as one of the top few players in that draft. How much credit should Polian get for the fact the pick worked out so well and how much blame would he have deserved if Manning had been a bust, since, as I said, the pick was widely perceived as a worthy choice/risk. As you appear to be saying above, it makes no sense to can a GM for being unlucky, for being unable to predict the future. The best they can be asked to do on the drafting front is make educated guesses, take calculated risks and choose sensibly. It's a given that a certain percentage of picks won't work out, although the failure rate obviously can't be too high.

As for Kalil or Patterson being busts: I think it's way too early to make that determination for either player.

[chicagopurple]

its NOT too early for Kalil, it is insanely early for CP.
Its also way early to judge Zim.....
The real painful failures are TJax and Ponder....If Teddy is the third fail, Spielman should be gone...I pray its not so.

[Mothman]

Totally agree with your comment that judging a GM solely on the performance of the quarterbacks he drafts is a bad way to evaluate that GM's performance. Obviously, if you strike out continually at the QB position, that's not good, and it'll likely get you fired. But I don't think one GM is necessarily better than other GMs just because, say, an Aaron Rodgers falls into his lap at 22. Plus, I think you have to look at other aspects of the job, as well, including drafts, trades, negotiating salaries, managing the cap, and a whole host of other duties a GM has to perform.

Exactly, a GM has to be assessed on how well he manages the team, not just whether he's able to land a franchise QB or not, although sooner or later, failure to do that will usually sink a GM, mainly because it's hard to win consistently without one and as we all know, winning is the bottom line in the NFL.

You also have to look at drafts at the other positions. Spielman picks like Anthony Barr, Sharif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes (a product of the Percy Harvin trade, another in the plus column for Rick), Harrison Smith, Robert Blanton, and Josh Robinson are doing really well. Unfortunately, we place so much emphasis on the quarterback position that it's easy to overlook these other guys.

Also agree with you about CP84. I would add, however, that lots of other first-round WRs have ended up as busts. After QB, wide receiver might be the most difficult position to predict. But you're right. Taking Patterson was a risk, given that WR is a fairly intense position mentally, and there were definitely questions about CP's mental acuity. Spielman will eventually have to answer for that pick, either way.

He will and I think that pick may serve as an illustration of one of Spielman's potential shortcomings. I'm still trying to work this through in my head so I'm a little reluctant to post about it but maybe you guys can help me work it out. I question whether Spielman builds logically enough. I have no objections to the choice to draft Patterson from a talent point of view. The guy is loaded with natural ability and it can be worth a risk to take a player like that and try to harness those gifts into long-term production. However, when Patterson was drafted, the Vikings still had a starting QB they were trying to develop into a better passer and more effective QB. Adding more talent around him made sense but did adding an extremely raw talent? Was that the best way to help a young QB or would it have made much more sense to draft a more refined receiver, someone who could have stepped in with a more established skill set and provided immediate help, from game one? I'm not sure but I lean toward the latter answer, even though I like Patterson. Ponder proved to be a bust but now the Vikes are trying to develop another young QB and while I have nothing against Patterson, it's obvious Teddy could use someone like Allen or Hopkins, two receivers available in the same draft who had the skills to provide more immediate help.

It's something to think about anyway. After all, being a GM isn't just about assembling a talented team for a coach, it's about building a team whose parts sufficiently complement one another so that the whole is greater than the sum.

Does that make sense?

[frosted]

He will and I think that pick may serve as an illustration of one of Spielman's potential shortcomings. I'm still trying to work this through in my head so I'm a little reluctant to post about it but maybe you guys can help me work it out. I question whether Spielman builds logically enough. I have no objections to the choice to draft Patterson from a talent point of view. The guy is loaded with natural ability and it can be worth a risk to take a player like that and try to harness those gifts into long-term production. However, when Patterson was drafted, the Vikings still had a starting QB they were trying to develop into a better passer and more effective QB. Adding more talent around him made sense but did adding an extremely raw talent? Was that the best way to help a young QB or would it have made much more sense to draft a more refined receiver, someone who could have stepped in with a more established skill set and provided immediate help, from game one? I'm not sure but I lean toward the latter answer, even though I like Patterson. Ponder proved to be a bust but now the Vikes are trying to develop another young QB and while I have nothing against Patterson, it's obvious Teddy could use someone like Allen or Hopkins, two receivers available in the same draft who had the skills to provide more immediate help.

It's something to think about anyway. After all, being a GM isn't just about assembling a talented team for a coach, it's about building a team whose parts sufficiently complement one another so that the whole is greater than the sum.

Does that make sense?

I think what you're saying makes sense. Maybe Spielman looked at the free agent acquisition of Jennings in that light (steady, reliable), and decided to take a leap on Patterson's explosive skill set.

[Mothman]

I think what you're saying makes sense. Maybe Spielman looked at the free agent acquisition of Jennings in that light (steady, reliable), and decided to take a leap on Patterson's explosive skill set.

I'm guessing that's exactly what happened.