Vikings OL and GM discussion

[mansquatch]

Jim you can't have a strategy that is not fluid in the NFL. You can say "we neglected position X" because we were unable to add talent to that group in a given offseason, but IMO, that is an incomplete argument. Did we neglect it or was there nothing there when we picked or signed FA? Or was there stuff there that was too expensive or didn't fit well enough into our draft position? Maybe they didn't like the guys that were there? Maybe they did like somebody but couldn't make a deal to get proper value?

Lots of reasons for them to not add talent. When Spielman gets criticized it is basically "he didn't fix X". I'm merely proposing a standard where if you are going to complain about neglect at a certain position then you point out where they could have addressed it. Everything this guy does is based on opportunity cost. When he adds a piece he doesn't add others. Who are the others?

I think Rick has done a great job building a roster than can contend. This roster can contend, albeit to a lesser extent (probably) after an unpredictable injury to the starting QB. It isn't a perfect roster, but no roster in the NFL is perfect. IMO, the place where Spielman can really take heat is the Patterson Trade. We likely gave up at least one OL prospect, maybe two in that trade, but hindsight is 20/20.

[Mothman]

Jim you can't have a strategy that is not fluid in the NFL.

I agree but I said nothing about a rigid approach.

You can say "we neglected position X" because we were unable to add talent to that group in a given offseason, but IMO, that is an incomplete argument.

It's not the argument I'm making. I'm not sure why you're under that impression.

Lots of reasons for them to not add talent. When Spielman gets criticized it is basically "he didn't fix X".

Perhaps that's true but again, I'm not talking about anything as simple as Spielman failing to address position X in a single offseason. My issue with him is much more about roster management and team-building over time.

I'm merely proposing a standard where if you are going to complain about neglect at a certain position then you point out where they could have addressed it. Everything this guy does is based on opportunity cost. When he adds a piece he doesn't add others. Who are the others?

Again, that's been asked and answered many times over the years. I agree with the basic idea that it's reasonable when criticizing a particular choice to point to a reasonable alternative.

I think Rick has done a great job building a roster than can contend. This roster can contend, albeit to a lesser extent (probably) after an unpredictable injury to the starting QB.

... and that's a good example of what I'm talking about. The timing and nature of Bridgewater's injury was unpredictable but the possibility that a starting QB could miss significant time due to injury is eminently predictable because it's a pretty regular occurrence in the NFL. You hope that your team and QB will be one of the exceptions and it will never happen but a GM could be more prepared for that possibility than Rick was in this case. That failure is not just a consequence of one offseason's worth of choices.

It isn't a perfect roster, but no roster in the NFL is perfect.

IMO, the place where Spielman can really take heat is the Patterson Trade. We likely gave up at least one OL prospect, maybe two in that trade, but hindsight is 20/20.

It's not just hindsight. the risks and the cost were clear at the time. However, I think where he can really take the heat is that he's spent 9 years as Personnel Director and GM and the only season where the team's had a particularly good QB or passing game was 2009, after Favre was signed at the 11th hour in August. As discussed up-thread, they have one playoff win in his time with the Vikings (again, with Favre's help). That's not a great yield over the better part of a decade.

It's not simply about dissecting whether pick X was a good bet at the time. It's about roster management, team-building, etc. One move effects another. As I said earlier, I don't think Spielman's a bad GM but I believe he deserves some criticism. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect a perfect roster at any given time but I do think it's reasonable to say the results over the last 9 years are underwhelming.

[chicagopurple]

Exctly!

[VikingLord]

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

True, but it would be a mistake to equate the outcomes with a lack of skill or judgment by the GM making the decisions. Outcomes can still be bad even if the right decisions are consistently made.

I think what is most important is looking at the decisions in the context of how and why they were made. If Spielman ignores his board that says there is a 2nd round talent falling to him in the 3rd and trades the pick anyway, that would be an example of what I'm talking about. If OTOH someone is offering more in trade than any player could be worth with that 3rd, the trade is the better decision. If Spielman has a method of evaluation of both the value of picks and the value of players, he's able to convince others that the method maximizes the chance of making the right bets when applied consistently, and then he applies it consistently, if the outcomes aren't good he's either unlucky or something is wrong with the method.

Of course, I have about as much chance of knowing what Spielman's method is as I do of knowing what Donald Trump's plans are to eliminate ISIS, so all things considered all I can say is I think Spielman is doing a decent job overall based on where the team stands today as compared to where it stood when he took over as sole GM.

[Mothman]

True, but it would be a mistake to equate the outcomes with a lack of skill or judgment by the GM making the decisions. Outcomes can still be bad even if the right decisions are consistently made.

I'm not sure I agree with that but I see your point

I think what is most important is looking at the decisions in the context of how and why they were made. If Spielman ignores his board that says there is a 2nd round talent falling to him in the 3rd and trades the pick anyway, that would be an example of what I'm talking about. If OTOH someone is offering more in trade than any player could be worth with that 3rd, the trade is the better decision. If Spielman has a method of evaluation of both the value of picks and the value of players, he's able to convince others that the method maximizes the chance of making the right bets when applied consistently, and then he applies it consistently, if the outcomes aren't good he's either unlucky or something is wrong with the method.

Of course, I have about as much chance of knowing what Spielman's method is as I do of knowing what Donald Trump's plans are to eliminate ISIS, so all things considered all I can say is I think Spielman is doing a decent job overall based on where the team stands today as compared to where it stood when he took over as sole GM.

I agree with that final assessment (he's doing a decent job) but I also think he deserves criticism for some clear failures that have occurred during his time with the team and during his more limited time as GM. Also: i suspect we can agree that a "decent" job isn't going to win a championship.

[VikingLord]

I agree with that final assessment (he's doing a decent job) but I also think he deserves criticism for some clear failures that have occurred during his time with the team and during his more limited time as GM. Also: i suspect we can agree that a "decent" job isn't going to win a championship.

Yup - the players are going to have to do that last part along with the coaches.

[VikingLord]

Edit: Rats! Edward, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. The buttons are right next to each other and I obviously clicked on the wrong one. I'm terribly sorry about that! I hope my reply below makes sense. I'm exhausted after a long week... —Jim

Also, I have to say on this point, let's take Teddy Bridgewater as an example. Does Spielman get credit or disdain for that choice? Obviously there wasn't consensus (and still wasn't as of the end of last season) that was the right move, and now with Bridgewater's severe injury preventing him from playing we may never know. So was that a better bet than, say, holding steady and maybe instead of picking up Bridgewater getting an OL or DL?

Patterson is kind of an extreme example of a move. Bridgewater is a bit more nuanced of an example, but it's an example of the point I'm trying to make that sometimes even the right bets don't pay off.

I happen to think the Bridgewater bet was the right bet at the time. And I also happen to think that if it doesn't pay off, blaming Spielman for that bad luck is both pointless and even dangerous. If the Wilfs truly believe it is Spielman's mismanagement that is to blame for the bad outcome in this case, they could easily decide to replace him with someone like, say, Matt Millen or Mike Singletary, both of whom would be even money against a monkey throwing at a dart board when it comes to the draft.

... or they could replace him with an even better GM, which isn't so dangerous. However, I'm not saying he should be replaced.

The Bridegwater pick is a pretty good example but, of course, it also illustrates a few other points. For example, it shows that the "right" bet isn't clear in the first place. I don't really consider Bridgewater the "right bet" at the time but he was, at least, a reasonable bet. Plus, we have to give consideration to why drafting a QB relatively high that year was necessary: Ponder had bombed and the Vikes hadn't been developing a good alternative so they needed a young QB. Failing to learn from the lesson of Tarvaris Jackson (ie: not having a solid Plan B in development) led to drafting Ponder early in R1. Not having a good Plan B in development when Ponder failed led to drafting Bridgewater, which, when the lesson still hadn't been learned, led to an expensive trade for Bradford. That's 3 first round picks spent on the QB position in 7 years I say 7 because one of those picks won't be used until next year). That lack of preparation falls back on management and illustrates the point I was making to Mansquatch above, which is that a GM has to take a holistic, big picture approach. He has to consider the present, the future, how the pieces fit together logically, where the team needs to be most prepared for injuries, and so on.

You're not looking for someone who consistently knocks it out of the park. You're looking for someone who consistently makes the right bets given a particular set of circumstances, and does that at a rate higher than the league average for GMs.

One way to measure that is to look at what percentage of a given GM's picks are in the NFL past their rookie contracts. Other metrics that might help would be the number of picks made by a given GM that have won league recognition via pro bowl nominations, MVP, offensive or defensive rookie of the year, etc. How many become reliable starters by the end of their rookie deals? Maybe throw in how many free agents or traded players remain with the team past their initial deals?

You'd be looking for evidence that a particular GM is at least average among his peers in those metrics, and would expect that if he is better than his peers in those metrics that the teams he fields would also be on average better than their competitors. My guess is if you looked at those stats for someone like Ron Wolf in Green Bay, he'd be better than average among his peers for the duration of his time as GM of the Packers.

Thats probably true. I imagine Wolf would rate better than average if judged by those criteria.

I think the best measurement is the team itself: how it's built, what it achieves, where and how it succeeds and fails, and whether the GM is good at recognizing and addressing weaknesses, learning from past mistakes, etc. I think the measures you're suggesting are useful for analysis too but since I see the GM's job as team-building (with a goal of winning a championship) I see team success as the most important measurement. It's possible for a GM to select a lot of players that receive the recognition and accolades you mentioned and still preside over a mediocre-to-bad team.

[Mothman]

Yup - the players are going to have to do that last part along with the coaches.

Of course, but it's not quite that simple since, just as the coach has to work with the players to win, the GM has to work with the coach, scouts, etc. to assemble a team capable of winning a championship in the first place.

[halfgiz]

Good break down of Sunday's game. Was a rough start....this is a worthwhile read.

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/ ... ew-o-line/

[Mothman]

Good break down of Sunday's game. Was a rough start....this is a worthwhile read.

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/ ... ew-o-line/

Thanks for the link. Hasan's writing for ESPN 1500 now, eh?

It wasn't a very encouraging start for the OL. Hopefully, it gets better.

[IrishViking]

Obviously it's way too early still but the Oline didnt give up a sack and i think Hill was only pressure on seven or so drop backs. Say what you will about the run blocking but maybe the off season went better for the Oline then we thought

[TSonn]

Good break down of Sunday's game. Was a rough start....this is a worthwhile read.

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/ ... ew-o-line/

That second GIF in the run blocking section is very concerning. Boone obviously misses his block but did AD even try to go that way? Looks like he was going right the whole time into what looks to be about 33 Titans. If he makes Boone's defender miss (or if Boone didn't miss his block), that's a touchdown all the way if he goes that way.

[Mothman]

That second GIF in the run blocking section is very concerning. Boone obviously misses his block but did AD even try to go that way? Looks like he was going right the whole time into what looks to be about 33 Titans. If he makes Boone's defender miss (or if Boone didn't miss his block), that's a touchdown all the way if he goes that way.

To his left? There appears to be no opportunity for a cutback in that direction at all.

http://giphy.com/gifs/3oz8xVV4aiosUH7ld ... =tag_click

PS.) How do I share a GIF here so it plays rather than just showing up as a link?

[TSonn]

To his left? There appears to be no opportunity for a cutback in that direction at all.

http://giphy.com/gifs/3oz8xVV4aiosUH7ld ... =tag_click

PS.) How do I share a GIF here so it plays rather than just showing up as a link?

Ooo, yeah you're right there. I wonder if Hill could have audibled out of that run. It just looks like how I'd imagine a pee wee football team trying to run it against the Alabama defense looks - no chance of that play ever working in that situation.

[Mothman]

Ooo, yeah you're right there. I wonder if Hill could have audibled out of that run. It just looks like how I'd imagine a pee wee football team trying to run it against the Alabama defense looks - no chance of that play ever working in that situation.

That's a great analogy.

I really wonder why they didn't audible away from some of those runs against stacked fronts on Sunday. Maybe that's an adjustment we'll see this week.