It doesn't look to me like anybody is expecting a complete disaster. HardcoreVikesFan's post was about his frustration with the team's ongoing mediocrity. That's the source of my frustration too and it seems to be what bothers some of the other fans who have responded in this thread.mansquatch wrote:The vast difference between my posts and the previous two or three really blows my mind.
If I were to boil my view down to it's essence it would be this:
If you get 2016 level of Defensive performace (or better), + Sam Bradford as good or better than last year + Average OL play = Playoff contender. Over simplified for sure, but is basically where I'm at.
I'm fine if people want to debate that, it is just my opinion. (Jim and I have gone back and fourth on it for the entire offeseason.) I'm just curious why people think that if the OL improves to average we are still a complete disaster? That logic completely escapes me.
I honestly don't think that's it at all. I think that axe-grinding is a reaction to what people have been seeing on Sundays for most of the last decade. Again, as I mentioned in the OP, the Vikings won as many playoff games in the first 3 years under Mike Tice, with no GM and an owner trying run the team cheaply, as they have during the entire Wilf era. What blows my mind is that so many Vikings fans aren't more frustrated. I'm constantly amazed at how defensive people are when they see criticism of Spielman and how optimistic they are about the playoff chances of a team that's won 1 playoff game in 11 years. The Vikings record since Spielman joined the team is 81-79-1. That's mediocre. They've had 4 winning seasons in those 10 years (I threw out 2006 since Spielman joined the team mid-year, after the draft). Over the 5 years since Spielman became GM, their record is a similarly unimpressive 41-38-1 so given all of the above and the overall track record of those involved, shouldn't we expect the frustration we see?We went 8-8 last year with probably the worst NFL OL I've seen in 20 years as a serious fan. if that doesn't speak to the quality of the rest of the roster I'm really not sure what does? I do not understand the thought process that leads to a conclusion of "we are headed to a losing season" if that same OL gets better. Sometime I wonder if some of the posters on here turn off the game when the defense is on the field?
It also feels like a lot posters have a serious axe to grind with Spielman and they do not care about what they are seeing on Sundays.
I can't speak for anyone else but I know exactly why I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off off because I repeatedly see Spielman make serious blunders and fail to learn from past mistakes. I'm ticked off at the mediocrity. It's better than having a team that's a perpetual bottom feeder so I realize it could be worse but we can look around the league and easily see it could be much better too.As I've said here and other times the GM issue comes up: As compared to what? How do you rate him? It is easy to say he hasn't hit on all his draft picks. OK great. What is the average hit rate in the NFL? What is really good? I've asked those questions literally dozens of times on here and I never get a clear answer. I've come to view the attitude as this:
Pissed off, don't know why.
I've tried to answer most of these questions in the past but I'll try again:
The GM should be assessed on how effectively he builds the team and how effectively the team performs. That's the simple version and it's the umbrella answer that covers everything else. The goal is to win so honestly, any comparison can simply be against that standard. How much are they winning? Making the playoffs and winning in the postseason are clearly the team's goals so how effectively have they achieved those goals over the years? To the extent further comparisons needs to be made, I'd say the they should be made to teams that do those things effectively but honestly, the main comparison should be between the Vikings goals and their actual achievements. How often do they fall short? How often do they achieve or surpass their goals?
I'm assuming you were asking about the average hit rate for draft picks. I think that question falls under the umbrella mentioned above. We often deconstruct these things and look at the details around here but the basics are simple. Is the team drafting well enough to meet the basic goals mentioned above? Are they hitting on enough draft picks to build teams that are perennial playoff contenders? Do they win postseason games? If not, that's not good enough, regardless of how many picks they retain compared to other teams or where they stand on a draft hit rate grading curve. It all comes back to the bottom line of building and sustaining a winning team.
What's indicative of good job performance by the GM? Success. Building a winner by using all of the tools in a GM's toolbox: draft, free agency, trades, cap management, scouting, analysis... all of it. It all falls under that big umbrella and whether we look at the last 10 years or limit ourselves to the last 5, the overall results have been mediocre. 4 winning seasons, 1 playoff win. To me, the question shouldn't be why so many fans seem disgruntled or dissatisfied but why more fans don't feel that way. Why do so many people not only seem complacent about the team's mediocrity but passionately defend those responsible for bringing it to us year after year?