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
VikingLord wrote: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.
That's a great analogy.