Vikings Message Board.Com

Spielman seems to have problems with OL and DB picks.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Mothman wrote: Seriously? He started about 40 games for the Vikes. I would hope at least some fans here remember him (not that he was particularly good).

I meant on draft day. People here are fairly knowledgeable and when his name was called, I think it was a giant WHO?!?!?

I don't think Gerhart was a bad trade but it was arguably an unnecessary trade. The trade up for Bridgewater was more expensive than the trade up for Jackson and although Bridgewater has been a better player than Jackson, he hasn't been very good and there's a good chance the Vikes will get about 2 years out of that deal. Heck, Bridgewater spent a good portion of last season flirting with the franchise low for TD passes in a season set by the Jackson-led offense.

As for picks: there have been quite a few. For example, there's Tyrell Johnson, a second round pick that was a pretty big bust. Chris Cook was the 34th pick in the draft and I don't think he worked out much, if any better than Ryan Cook. Ponder was obviously a swing and a miss and consider these third rounders over the years:

Marcus McCauley
Asher Allen
Josh Robinson
Scott Crichton
on draftees

Oh, I thought you were talking more about trade up/down for players. A lot of those secondary guys you and I are on different sides as to who was probably more responsible for those picks I think. I'll leave it at that.

I would definitely keep him. His drafting has been above average, he's made some very good free agent moves, and he's hired a fantastic coach.

The OL is an epic failure, but it's pretty difficult to fix a line in free agency. There's a shortage of quality OL in the league, and many of the ones who make it to the market are there because they're flawed.

S197 wrote:I meant on draft day. People here are fairly knowledgeable and when his name was called, I think it was a giant WHO?!?!?

Ah, now I understand.

Oh, I thought you were talking more about trade up/down for players. A lot of those secondary guys you and I are on different sides as to who was probably more responsible for those picks I think. I'll leave it at that.

We probably are on different sides of it because as far as Im concerned, we know who made the picks. Spielman made the picks. They may or may not have been influenced by Childress and Frazier but in the end, they were his picks. We all know coaches exert some influence but but that's still happening today. It's seems obvious that Zimmer has had an influence on some of the players chosen. We can get wrapped up in job titles and who ultimately made what call but Spielman's played a very significant role in the draft since his arrival, from running the scouting department that evaluates the players to actually making the picks in the draft. If we can't attribute picks like Johnson, Cook, McCauley, Robinson, etc. to him why should we attribute picks like Rhodes, Barr, Kendricks and Waynes to him? Doesn't it seem very likely that Zimmer and Frazier influenced those choices?

Mothman wrote: If we can't attribute picks like Johnson, Cook, McCauley, Robinson, etc. to him why should we attribute picks like Rhodes, Barr, Kendricks and Waynes to him? Doesn't it seem very likely that Zimmer and Frazier influenced those choices?

I think some are referring to him not officially being the GM with those picks. Thats why I'm not big on assessing prior to 2012 because nobody has a clue what went on behind closed doors. However, from 2012 to now, he IS our GM and they ARE his picks.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I think some are referring to him not officially being the GM with those picks.

I realize that.

Thats why I'm not big on assessing prior to 2012 because nobody has a clue what went on behind closed doors. However, from 2012 to now, he IS our GM and they ARE his picks.

We still don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The GM title means we can "bottom line" decisions and hold Spielman responsible but I see no compelling reason to wipe the slate clean of responsibility prior to 2012.

Mothman wrote:
We still don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The GM title means we can "bottom line" decisions and hold Spielman responsible but I see no compelling reason to wipe the slate clean of responsibility prior to 2012.

With picks post-2012, he had the final say. Prior-2012, nobody truly knows who did.

Did he have a part in those picks, yeah obviously. But to say they were HIS picks is all hear-say if you ask me. That is why I hardly ever refer to those years because I have no idea who was calling the shots.

I've always assessed picks post-2012 because he is officially our GM and that is what he is responsible for.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: With picks post-2012, he had the final say. Prior-2012, nobody truly knows who did.

Did he have a part in those picks, yeah obviously. But to say they were HIS picks is all hear-say if you ask me. That is why I hardly ever refer to those years because I have no idea who was calling the shots.

I've always assessed picks post-2012 because he is officially our GM and that is what he is responsible for.

if that's the case, the o-line debacle falls mainly on him, time to let him go.

Mothman wrote:Doesn't it seem very likely that Zimmer and Frazier influenced those choices?

Absolutely. It's well known that Frazier worked Cook out privately and Zimmer was all over Waynes so I think their respective fingerprints are all over those picks. Particularly since both came from a defensive background. Spielman ultimately turned the card in but yes I agree that the coaches certainly had a great deal of influence.

The main difference is Zimmer was Spielman's first chance to get his choice of HC in the building. He was more or less stuck with Frazier. One of the main responsibilities of a leader is to be able to find other leaders to delegate responsibility. A CEO looks at a business from a very macro perspective. It's up to those below him to get granular. I see it no different in the Vikings structure.

S197 wrote: Absolutely. It's well known that Frazier worked Cook out privately and Zimmer was all over Waynes so I think their respective fingerprints are all over those picks. Particularly since both came from a defensive background. Spielman ultimately turned the card in but yes I agree that the coaches certainly had a great deal of influence.

The main difference is Zimmer was Spielman's first chance to get his choice of HC in the building. He was more or less stuck with Frazier. One of the main responsibilities of a leader is to be able to find other leaders to delegate responsibility. A CEO looks at a business from a very macro perspective. It's up to those below him to get granular. I see it no different in the Vikings structure.

I don't either which is one of the reasons I'm down on Spielman. His view from the macro perspective seems sorely lacking to me.

I don't either which is one of the reasons I'm down on Spielman. His view from the macro perspective seems sorely lacking to me.

Which is what I was trying to say from the start. At that point Childress was a scapegoat. Then Zygi. But after the three year rebuild? And now at this point? He's an average GM. He spent too much time trying to fill holes, instead of trying to fill holes and prevent future holes from opening. Which is why the team is where it's at. A place it's been time and again. One dimensional. Because the front office was too focused and took a narrow view from the beginning. Too many moves were "We lost position X, so we draft/sign position X". Macro view is perfect description. It was clear from the jump he was focusing too narrowly to effectively build a long term contender.

Demi wrote: Which is what I was trying to say from the start. At that point Childress was a scapegoat. Then Zygi. But after the three year rebuild? And now at this point? He's an average GM. He spent too much time trying to fill holes, instead of trying to fill holes and prevent future holes from opening. Which is why the team is where it's at. A place it's been time and again. One dimensional. Because the front office was too focused and took a narrow view from the beginning. Too many moves were "We lost position X, so we draft/sign position X". Macro view is perfect description. It was clear from the jump he was focusing too narrowly to effectively build a long term contender.

very well said

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Yeah easy for you to say. Stanley went at #6, Conklin went at 8, Tunsil went at 13 and had an idiotic video posted of him just before the draft. We picked at 23. Do you have any idea how much that would cost us??? This is my point with some of these posts. I just dont understand how anyone would figure we would move all the way up to 6, 8 or even 13 to take a pot head and not have to give up a boat load of picks. So no, RT SHOULDN'T have been Stanley, Tunsil or Conklin because it would cost us many of picks in last years and this years draft.

The only one in reason if you ask me was Decker and that would still have costed a pretty penny. Outside of that, to move into the top 10 from 23 just isn't very realistic and would cost way too much.

Ok, then Decker.

You go on saying nobody had a better plan that was more realistic...well, there you have it. Decker and Penn would have been a much better plan than Kalil, Andre Smith, Treadwell and Alexander.

My point wasn't that it need be Stanley or Conklin, or Tunsil, but that whoever the Vikings deemed the best T for the best value in draft capital, the need was so great and so OBVIOUS at that position that they should have moved to to address it.

Regardless of how you feel about our GM I think, for better or worse, the sheer absurd amount of injuries on the line this year completely insulates him against termination due to its poor play. He can very reasonably argue, well, if any of the guys I picked up had, had more than 3 games together to play and learn we would have done much better.

fiestavike wrote: Ok, then Decker.

You go on saying nobody had a better plan that was more realistic...well, there you have it. Decker and Penn would have been a much better plan than Kalil, Andre Smith, Treadwell and Alexander.

My point wasn't that it need be Stanley or Conklin, or Tunsil, but that whoever the Vikings deemed the best T for the best value in draft capital, the need was so great and so OBVIOUS at that position that they should have moved to to address it.

Well then whats the point of bringing them up when they werent viable options. You knew where we picked, you knew where those tackles were going to go (top 10 range), you knew it was out of the question for us. So why bring them up? You specifically said, our tackle SHOULD HAVE been Stanley, Tunsil, Decker or Conklin.....no they shouldnt have. Only Decker was the real possibility.

As for Penn, last time I checked, the Bucs released him back in 2014 because he rarely lived up to his $41 million contract he signed in 2010, was going on age 31 and struggled with weight issues. AT THE TIME, it was Matt Kalil's second season, with his first making a pro bowl appearance. Penn was nothing but a band-aid for the Raiders at the time. He was an average LT that finally took off when he got to Oakland.

Point being, why would we go and sign Donald Penn when we have a young LT that has played 2 seasons and one of them being a pro bowl season???? It doesnt even make sense. No less Penn was an average at best OT back then.

It's pretty easy to sit here NOW and hand pick who we "should" have signed seeing how well they have or havent played. Dont bother trying to sit here and say you "wanted" Penn back in 2014. He was average back then. And we had a high priced early pick that was in a pro bowl his rookie year and only going into his 3rd season.

Our offensive line SHOULD HAVE been Dallas' (easy to say right?), but everything isnt always sunshine and rainbows