Vikings OL and GM discussion

[mansquatch]

I'll take the compliment from Ngata, but my guess is that his statement says more about the sorry state of our oppositon than it does about the leaps and bounds we've made. Then again, we are probably one RT away from being mostly solid with our group of starters. The backup situation isn't great though, at least not right now. If Harris can recover from his "mystery flu" I'd feel better.

[Jordysghost]

Ngata: Sitton improves Bears, but Vikings' O-line best in NFC North (via http://ble.ac/teamstream-) http://teamstre.am/2canUIx

Sorry I have no clue how to post the link to this article on my phone or even quote the part about the Vikings, but I found it very interesting that Haloti Ngata would say we have the best oline in the division. Don't know if I agree with him, but I do expect it to be greatly improved over last year. Smith might only be average at RT but he will still be a tremenedous improvement over Clemmings. Boone also should make that line look a lot better.

Uh, Im not trying to be a annoying guest here, but I don't think there is anything to suggest anyone team in the division has a better O line then GB.

When they were all upright they were one of the best in the league last year.

[VikingLord]

Patterson doesn't look like it will be a good trade unless things turn around but I think Spielman has had more good trades than bad. The trade up for Harrison probably being the best. Let's not forget Jared Allen who was one slip up away from being out of the league at the time. The Harvin trade, the trade back so the Browns could snag Richardson, Bridgewater, etc.

I like that Spielman takes chances, and for the most part those chances have a reasonable expectation of payoff. In the case of Patterson, for example, the guy really is a physical freak in many ways, and winning in the NFL is about creating matchups that the other team is likely to lose. It was a gamble, but I don't think it was reckless, especially if the offensive braintrust was telling Spielman they could work with the guy and develop him.

The pick trading during the draft should come down to the board and value. I'd have to assume there was nobody on the board when the offer came in that Spielman felt outweighed the value produced by the trade, and assuming the Vikings board is not a dart board, I'd be surprised if Spielman didn't have ratings and numbers to make that decision as objective as possible. Of course fans look at it as a 3rd round pick, but draft picks are always a gamble. Spielman's job is to make the best bet he can using the hand he's dealt, and even if it doesn't turn out well that doesn't mean he made the wrong bet.

[Mothman]

I like that Spielman takes chances, and for the most part those chances have a reasonable expectation of payoff. In the case of Patterson, for example, the guy really is a physical freak in many ways, and winning in the NFL is about creating matchups that the other team is likely to lose. It was a gamble, but I don't think it was reckless, especially if the offensive braintrust was telling Spielman they could work with the guy and develop him.

Perhaps "reckless" isn't the right word for it but I don't think it was a particularly well-calculated gamble for several reasons. First, Spielman knew there was a decent chance that coaching staff might not even be around to develop Patterson after 2013 so he needed to take that into consideration when drafting a project player that would require a great deal of developmental commitment to pay long term dividends. Would the next staff be willing to commit to developing that project? It turns out they weren't too patient about it.

Second, still with that first consideration in mind, when you look at the state of the roster at the time, investing so many picks into one extremely talented project was more than just a gamble. It meant those picks were only used to address one position when they could have been used to address several. The Vikes could have added an MLB or safety as well as a WR like Keenan Allen without trading up.

Third, the Vikes were trying to develop a young QB and Ponder needed WR help. Adding an unskilled WR at that particular time, rather than a skilled one, didn't provide the immediate help that could have been provided. I know Ponder didn't work out but strategically, at the time, it was a pretty questionable choice.

I've been a huge advocate for getting Patterson more playing time and furthering his development. That's partly because I believe he IS an immensely talented player and partly because I think he's become a big investment squandered. He could have proven to be an investment worthy of the picks used to acquire him so it wasn't a totally unreasonable gamble but I don't think it was a terribly smart one either.

The pick trading during the draft should come down to the board and value.

I think that's the tip of the iceberg. There's much more to consider.

I'd have to assume there was nobody on the board when the offer came in that Spielman felt outweighed the value produced by the trade, and assuming the Vikings board is not a dart board, I'd be surprised if Spielman didn't have ratings and numbers to make that decision as objective as possible. Of course fans look at it as a 3rd round pick, but draft picks are always a gamble. Spielman's job is to make the best bet he can using the hand he's dealt, and even if it doesn't turn out well that doesn't mean he made the wrong bet.

... and yet he's not infallible so sometimes it does mean he made the wrong bet.

[mondry]

I like that Spielman takes chances, and for the most part those chances have a reasonable expectation of payoff. In the case of Patterson, for example, the guy really is a physical freak in many ways, and winning in the NFL is about creating matchups that the other team is likely to lose. It was a gamble, but I don't think it was reckless, especially if the offensive braintrust was telling Spielman they could work with the guy and develop him.

The pick trading during the draft should come down to the board and value. I'd have to assume there was nobody on the board when the offer came in that Spielman felt outweighed the value produced by the trade, and assuming the Vikings board is not a dart board, I'd be surprised if Spielman didn't have ratings and numbers to make that decision as objective as possible. Of course fans look at it as a 3rd round pick, but draft picks are always a gamble. Spielman's job is to make the best bet he can using the hand he's dealt, and even if it doesn't turn out well that doesn't mean he made the wrong bet.

That's a good point, if you're sitting there in the 3rd round and your weeks, upon weeks, upon weeks of research / data is telling you none of these guys match up to the 3rd round picks value it makes a lot of sense to push the decision back to next year and pick up extra compensation for it, rather than forcing it and hoping for the best.

[Mothman]

That's a good point, if you're sitting there in the 3rd round and your weeks, upon weeks, upon weeks of research / data is telling you none of these guys match up to the 3rd round picks value it makes a lot of sense to push the decision back to next year and pick up extra compensation for it, rather than forcing it and hoping for the best.

I find it awfully hard to believe they traded the pick because they didn't feel there was anybody on the board worthy of it. I could certainly see players worth taking at that spot.

I suspect Spielman just seized the opportunity to get 3 picks for 1 and that's understandable. I think Paul's point that there's a certain amount of hubris involved in a choice like that is also valid.

[mansquatch]

Well there is also something to be said for developing late round guys. Diggs was a mid round guy. So were Jarius Wright and more importantly, Danielle Hunter. Fusco was a late rounder. Heck, Alex Boone was undrafted. Guys like that make Brezinski's job a lot easier. This year we found Jayron Kearse, who looks to be on pace to solve our woes at Safety opposite Smith.

It might also be that such late round pickups and trades to accumulate picks are needed to compensate for early round trades. That is a two way street though.

I think Spielman's drafting overall has been pretty good. No GM hits on all picks, so if one is to criticize Rick it might be useful to compare vs. other GMs.

[Mothman]

Well there is also something to be said for developing late round guys. Diggs was a mid round guy. So were Jarius Wright and more importantly, Danielle Hunter. Fusco was a late rounder. Heck, Alex Boone was undrafted. Guys like that make Brezinski's job a lot easier. This year we found Jayron Kearse, who looks to be on pace to solve our woes at Safety opposite Smith.

It might also be that such late round pickups and trades to accumulate picks are needed to compensate for early round trades. That is a two way street though.

I think Spielman's drafting overall has been pretty good. No GM hits on all picks, so if one is to criticize Rick it might be useful to compare vs. other GMs.

His drafting overall has been solid and I don't think anybody expects him to hit on all picks. That's an unrealistic expectation. However, I do think it's fair to question or even criticize some of the choices he's made. I mean "choices" in the broader sense not "specific players drafted". When Spielman gets criticized here there's a tendency for the ensuing discussion to focus on the draft but while that's part of a GM's duties, and it was the main focus of Spielman's duties in his previous position with the team, there's much more to being a GM than just the draft (as you know).

[mansquatch]

I don't know I think it is about the draft. It could be that they took a guy in a position of less need in a given round because the guys on the board were not worthy of the pick, ie BPA.

In FA it is a different ball of wax. There are a finite group of guys available and the ones who will likely have the biggest roster impact are almost always the most expensive. So it comes down to salary cap and need. I think this is easier to understand by the fans since the full detail is easier to see and comprehend.

The draft is much harder to evaluate. If you are going to get after Rick on choices, then you have to ask what the alternatives were. It is easy to say in Round X he grabbed guy Y and neglected the OL. But that statement isn't truly valid unless there was a guy who can play OL who was relatively worth the value of the pick in Round X. If there was no such guy, then the criticism doesn't really have merit.

To me evaluating the draft is about opportunity cost. What are players (group A) are we giving up to draft Player X? Would any members of A have been a better fit for us? If the answer is yes, then Spielman is rightly criticized.

I'm not saying this is what happened, just pointing out what I feel is a bit of flaw in how we look at and evaluate our GM.

[Mothman]

I don't know I think it is about the draft. It could be that they took a guy in a position of less need in a given round because the guys on the board were not worthy of the pick, ie BPA.

In FA it is a different ball of wax. There are a finite group of guys available and the ones who will likely have the biggest roster impact are almost always the most expensive. So it comes down to salary cap and need. I think this is easier to understand by the fans since the full detail is easier to see and comprehend.

The draft is much harder to evaluate. If you are going to get after Rick on choices, then you have to ask what the alternatives were. It is easy to say in Round X he grabbed guy Y and neglected the OL. But that statement isn't truly valid unless there was a guy who can play OL who was relatively worth the value of the pick in Round X. If there was no such guy, then the criticism doesn't really have merit.

To me evaluating the draft is about opportunity cost. What are players (group A) are we giving up to draft Player X? Would any members of A have been a better fit for us? If the answer is yes, then Spielman is rightly criticized.

I'm not saying this is what happened, just pointing out what I feel is a bit of flaw in how we look at and evaluate our GM.

I understand. I'm trying to point out what I also consider a flaw in the way people to tend to evaluate the GM, which is that they break the role down into it's component tasks when I think it needs to be viewed more holistically. In that sense, the draft is about the same thing as free agency: team-building. That's the GM's job. He has to consider the draft, free agency, cap management, coaching staff management, etc. and his approach in each area needs to complement his approach in the others because it's ALL about team-building. That's why your point about opportunity cost is so relevant. The draft is more about fit than about getting the appropriately ranked talent at the correct spot. I don't just mean fit for scheme either. I mean fit for the overall team-building plan.

That's why, even though I see value in comparing Spielman's hits and misses with those of other GMs, I don't think that's entirely necessary in evaluating his performance because even without doing that, we can look at his choices and ask if, individually and as a whole, they've made good sense in terms of team-building.

[VikingLord]

Second, still with that first consideration in mind, when you look at the state of the roster at the time, investing so many picks into one extremely talented project was more than just a gamble. It meant those picks were only used to address one position when they could have been used to address several. The Vikes could have added an MLB or safety as well as a WR like Keenan Allen without trading up.

This is a very valid criticism of the move to get Patterson given how raw he was and the questions surrounding him.

Third, the Vikes were trying to develop a young QB and Ponder needed WR help. Adding an unskilled WR at that particular time, rather than a skilled one, didn't provide the immediate help that could have been provided. I know Ponder didn't work out but strategically, at the time, it was a pretty questionable choice.

Agree on this front as well. Patterson was a swing for the fence when a line drive might have been more appropriate to the situation at the time.

I've been a huge advocate for getting Patterson more playing time and furthering his development. That's partly because I believe he IS an immensely talented player and partly because I think he's become a big investment squandered. He could have proven to be an investment worthy of the picks used to acquire him so it wasn't a totally unreasonable gamble but I don't think it was a terribly smart one either.

The thing that puzzles me about this particular player is that he's still on the roster, essentially in for kickoff returns and gadget plays. And this was the case last year when the Vikings were a bit receiver-challenged and there should have been a lot of opportunities for Patterson to shine. You'd hope he'd get some real opportunities if for no other reason than the other guys were not all that great for the most part, and yet he couldn't break into the lineup. So I'd have to assume either the Vikings love him as a kick returner, or they still see enough there that under the right conditions he can flourish.

... and yet he's not infallible so sometimes it does mean he made the wrong bet.

I'm not claiming he's infallible or even that he's always made justifiable bets. I just wouldn't characterize his riskier bets as hubris. To me, hubris is believing one knows the answer despite admitting they don't have all the facts or worse, purposely ignoring a subset of facts in the belief they don't matter or will be proven wrong. It's faith-based decision-making.

The way I look at it, if there is a 51% chance of a given bet paying off, that's the best bet even if you end up on the losing end of it. You have to go with the information available to you at the time and weigh the odds of each potential outcome based on what you know and what you can predict. Ironically, if looked at this way someone could be making the correct statistical moves in a draft and still wind up on the losing end of bets. Conversely, someone could be making the wrong bets and still seeing payoffs.

I think on the balance Spielman is making good bets most of the time. He's had a few misses as well, but I've yet to see a true example from him where he made a completely unjustified move based on what was known at the time. Even the trade up for Patterson doesn't cross that threshold for me despite the very valid points you raised. It was a risky move, but not unjustified, and because he remains on the roster there is still a chance it could pay off.

[mansquatch]

I understand. I'm trying to point out what I also consider a flaw in the way people to tend to evaluate the GM, which is that they break the role down into it's component tasks when I think it needs to be viewed more holistically. In that sense, the draft is about the same thing as free agency: team-building. That's the GM's job. He has to consider the draft, free agency, cap management, coaching staff management, etc. and his approach in each area needs to complement his approach in the others because it's ALL about team-building. That's why your point about opportunity cost is so relevant. The draft is more about fit than about getting the appropriately ranked talent at the correct spot. I don't just mean fit for scheme either. I mean fit for the overall team-building plan.

That's why, even though I see value in comparing Spielman's hits and misses with those of other GMs, I don't think that's entirely necessary in evaluating his performance because even without doing that, we can look at his choices and ask if, individually and as a whole, they've made good sense in terms of team-building.

Jim I think you reaching here. Obviously building talent is important, that is his job, but how he makes the choices matters. If he drafted a guy way too high people would be all over him for not using his tools effectively. My point is that if you are going to get on him about neglecting an area of the team then in order to fully validate the criticism you have to look at the opportunities he didn't take advantage of. The OL the Raiders paid a fortune to last year in FA is an example. Rick obviously didn't want to break the bank on that player. That move can be criticized given the state of the OL. I think the decision was smart, but that is an example where there was opportunity. On the draft it is a lot harder because you have to deconstruct each pick to figure out who was on the board and how they were rated. We also know that if they drafted straight need we'd be absolutely livid.

[dead_poet]

I wonder if they ended up shelling out the cash for Osemele if they could've fit Bradford under the cap this year?

[Mothman]

Jim I think you reaching here. Obviously building talent is important, that is his job, but how he makes the choices matters.

I haven't suggested otherwise. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying! How he makes choices does matter and not just in the draft. Where's the reach?

Please note, I didn't say building talent, I said team-building, which is similar but not quite the same thing and I make the distinction because even though amassing talent is a huge consideration, fit is extremely important and having an overall strategy that fits the pieces being put in place matters as well. Move A can impact move B. move B can impact moves, C, D and E and so on. The GM has to have the BIG picture in mind. He can't afford to approach the draft or free agency simply in terms of cost and value. He has to consider so much more than that. Which players are his primary building blocks? Who will be coaching the team? Who's the best fit for the schemes? Who's the best fit for the locker room? Which players are the keys to our success and what do we do if they get injured? Who will be playing position X in 3 years, when we're making a run at the Super Bowl?

The list goes on and on but it's important for a GM to have that big picture in mind when he's making moves. He always has to consider both immediate and long term impact .

If he drafted a guy way too high people would be all over him for not using his tools effectively. My point is that if you are going to get on him about neglecting an area of the team then in order to fully validate the criticism you have to look at the opportunities he didn't take advantage of.

I've done that repeatedly for years, right here on the board. Others have too.

[Mothman]

The thing that puzzles me about this particular player is that he's still on the roster, essentially in for kickoff returns and gadget plays. And this was the case last year when the Vikings were a bit receiver-challenged and there should have been a lot of opportunities for Patterson to shine. You'd hope he'd get some real opportunities if for no other reason than the other guys were not all that great for the most part, and yet he couldn't break into the lineup. So I'd have to assume either the Vikings love him as a kick returner, or they still see enough there that under the right conditions he can flourish.

Those are pretty much my feelings on the subject as well.

I'm not claiming he's infallible or even that he's always made justifiable bets. I just wouldn't characterize his riskier bets as hubris. To me, hubris is believing one knows the answer despite admitting they don't have all the facts or worse, purposely ignoring a subset of facts in the belief they don't matter or will be proven wrong. It's faith-based decision-making.

I see it more as overconfidence so we're using the word a little differently but I don't want to get caught up in the word choice. I didn't choose it in the first place.

The way I look at it, if there is a 51% chance of a given bet paying off, that's the best bet even if you end up on the losing end of it. You have to go with the information available to you at the time and weigh the odds of each potential outcome based on what you know and what you can predict. Ironically, if looked at this way someone could be making the correct statistical moves in a draft and still wind up on the losing end of bets. Conversely, someone could be making the wrong bets and still seeing payoffs.

I think on the balance Spielman is making good bets most of the time. He's had a few misses as well, but I've yet to see a true example from him where he made a completely unjustified move based on what was known at the time. Even the trade up for Patterson doesn't cross that threshold for me despite the very valid points you raised. It was a risky move, but not unjustified, and because he remains on the roster there is still a chance it could pay off.

Even if moves are justifiable, if (collectively) they don't eventually yield the results the organization is seeking, that becomes problematic.