No, of course not, especially in a single season but the GM can certainly bear a great deal of responsibility for a losing season and over time, his responsibility for overall team performance takes on greater significance because he's overseeing the operation.mansquatch wrote:Jim winning is a standard, but again, if the team loses, is it ALWAYS the GM's fault?
I don't think assessment is impossible just because every situation has unique circumstances and I think we do have some idea of how other GMs are performing, even if we don't follow every other team as closely as we follow the Vikes. Extenuating circumstances should always be considered but there's a solid basis for assessment. For example, in any job there are standards of performance and they aren't just related to how people in the same job elsewhere are performing, even though that can be a consideration. It seems to me the basis for most job evaluations is how effectively the person does the job at hand.]If a team is rebuilding you tolerate a lack of wins. Until when? Why?
If the team is mired by injuries do you give the GM a push for that season? If yes, why? If not, why? (Or maybe it depends?)
Did the players under-perform because the coaching staff got out competed? Is that the GM's fault? What if it happens three years in and the coach has had a strong performance to date and his mom died in the middle of the bad season. Still the GM's fault? Maybe it depends on the circumstances again?
This is why I keep coming back to the same question. There is no concrete answer without detailed insider knowledge. Even Win/Losses fails under the weight of scrutiny, there are too many "yeah but...".
Here is the kicker. The above questions / rules are only framed in how they are handled for the Vikings. To fully determine Spielman's success/failure you would then need to look around the league at other GM's in a similar position and see how they handled it. Did they do better or worse? For all we know, in a similar situation, overall Spielman did great. Maybe not. We don't know!!!
This is why I keep coming back to the same question. We are judging a guy's performance when we have no idea how the other GMs are performing. We think we know because we are grabbing for similar statistics, but under scrutiny those statistics are found to be lacking. Because it depends. Every situation has it's own nuances. So we are back to square one: We don't know or it depends.
I'd say he's somewhere in between for the various reasons you cited above.As an aside, here is thought exercise I've considered lately: Is Ted Thompsen a great or even good GM? by Wins and Losse and SB victories you would have to say absolutely. Yet many, many Packer fans want his head because they feel like one SB win in the Rogers era is under-performance. I think they are correct. They have the most dangerous QB to EVER play the game. Yet their defense does't scare anybody, their WR corps is uninspiring, they have no RB, and their OL mostly depends on the greatness of their QB. In short, they have not done a good job at adding competitive pieces to put around probably the best player in the NFL. If I apply Wins/Losses and SB Victory, as GB MGMT seems to be doing, I will never fire Ted Thompsen. Even though that same SB QB is getting disgruntled at the lack of effort to field a contending roster and starting to make public noise about it. Great GM or underachiever?
I think you have to judge him on both wins and losses and how well he's doing in other aspects of the job.I find that interesting because it is a completely opposite angle on GM performance vs. Spielman. How do you judge Ted where wins / losses are maybe not the best indicator?
I have to get back to work in a couple minutes so I can only answer briefly now but I can go into more detail later if you'd like. I think the case that there's a need for improvement is pretty easy to make at this point and I'd say the case for replacing Spielman hinges on the question of whether or not he can sufficiently improve as a GM. I believe there's a strong case to be made that he hasn't built the team logically or wisely enough over the years, that his judgment and philosophy as a drafter and team-builder is too flawed to ultimately result in a championship. In other words, he's a somewhat effective GM, just not effective enough to retain because he's unlikely to build a champion and therefore, they need a GM who is more likely to build a champion. It's a bit like having the GM equivalent of Dennis Green.To a point you've made to me several times this past three month Jim (roughly paraphrased) "not changing just because we might do worse isn't a good answer." So what is the case for change? Or the case against it?
I'm probably not the best person to make the case against change. If i were going to make it, I'd argue that there's a learning curve, that unexpected circumstances and setbacks have held Spielman back (although every GM has to deal with them and I think they tend to even out over time), that he's drafted some very good players and that he just needs more time.