Rick Spielman hasn't lost faith in himself or his system

[Mothman]

First of all, I never once said backup QBs DONT matter. Second of all, I said I wasnt a fan of Hill either and we could've done better.

Also, I know it's a small sample size but Brett Hundley is not a good QB IMO. Hence why he was originally a projected first rounder and then rapidly dropped to the 5th round. There was a reason for that. In NFL play, he was 2 for 10 for 17 yards and 1 INT for a QBR of 5.9. So he dropped from first round consideration to the 5th round and has shown nothing in the NFL but you're so sure the Packers would stick with him?? Hmmmm. You're giving the Packers much more credit than they deserve on that one thats for sure.

Either way, you and Jim are blowing what I said way out of proportion. I never once said the backup QB position doesnt matter. I'm just saying the chances of one pulling a playoff birth or a SB out of his arse are very low. And the fact that we had an opportunity to trade for a QB like Bradford was a great move IMO.

You're both missing the whole point behind the Bradford deal. Teddy's injury wasnt just an injury for this year and we'd have him back the following year. It was a possible CAREER ending injury. I'm sure if we lost Teddy for JUST this year, we wouldve rolled with a backup QB. That wasnt the case. We wouldnt have been relying on a backup for just this year. We'd be relying on a backup for well over a year. No team does that. This is WHY we traded for Bradford. It's very seldom you just turn to your backup QB after this kind of injury and say "ok you're the QB of the future now". You can use Dallas all you want but Dallas had to draft a QB because of Romo's age and back issues. We had a young, non-injury prone QB at the time. We put a veteran behind him that he could learn from which 95% of NFL teams do to their young QB.

So my point behind this whole argument is that it's 110% false that the Bradford deal had to do with the "inadequate choices" by Spielman.

You're simply wrong about that. Inadequate means "lacking the quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose". It's not false to say Hill fit that description or that Spielman's choice to settle for him as a backup fits it. It's an accurate description and if it were otherwise, the trade wouldn't have been necessary.

The word is being used correctly.

There is a HUGE difference between relying on a backup for a few games or the remainder of a season compared to relying on a backup to become the face of your franchise.

Which is why a team's backup should be capable of filling in for more than just a few games. If a team is relying on a backup that can't do that, they haven't sufficiently backed up their starter. It's still not clear who they want to become "the face of the franchise" so that part of your argument doesn't hold water. It's not even clear if the starting QB for 2018 is on the roster, although I'd say Bradford has a good shot at the job.

Spielman drew the short straw on this one and it was just terrible luck. Hate Spielman all you want, say I defend him all you want. Bottom line is, that is bad luck. YES he couldve had a better backup but it's very seldom you just hand the keys over to your backup QB to become the franchises QB for the next 5+ years. That was the situation we were in this past year.

We're all aware of the situation. The point here is there are better, smarter ways to handle the backup position and it's long past time the Vikings changed their approach.

Oh, and enough of this "hate Spielman" garbage (and I use that word because I'm tired of this accusation being leveled against people). I don't hate him. I doubt HardcoreVikesfan hates him either. Criticizing the man isn't the same as hating him and Spielman absolutely deserves criticism for his role in the Vikings ongoing mediocrity.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

There is a HUGE difference between relying on a backup for a few games or the remainder of a season compared to relying on a backup to become the face of your franchise. Spielman drew the short straw on this one and it was just terrible luck. Hate Spielman all you want, say I defend him all you want. Bottom line is, that is bad luck. YES he couldve had a better backup but it's very seldom you just hand the keys over to your backup QB to become the franchises QB for the next 5+ years. That was the situation we were in this past year. Look at any current NFL backup and the only one I'd hand the keys over to is Garappolo. That's sad and goes to show what you have for "quality" backups in this league.

You say you aren't a fan of Shaun Hill and that we could have done better. Yet, you don't want to define having Shaun Hill as the primary back-up as being an 'inadequate' choice? That doesn't make any sense.

To your point of a back-up becoming the face of the franchise - I have to more examples: Tom Brady and Tony Romo. One was a sixth round pick, one was undrafted. One is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. The other is one of the greatest UDFA finds of all-time. Do you think there weren't people who thought those two guys were just back-up QB fodder at one point in their careers? Steve Young, Doug Williams, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers would also like to have words with you.

To say that a back-up QB couldn't become the face of the franchise is short-sighted. It doesn't happen often, but, it is not unprecedented.

I don't see a point in arguing this anymore. It is clear you believe Spielman cannot be faulted for what happened in 2016. My position is he can and he refuses to be held accountable.

Before I go: I don't hate Spielman. He is a good person and has done nice things for the organization while he has been here. Don't put those words into my mouth. I do believe he is free to be criticized. He's been here ten years and we haven't had great success outside of 2009. So yeah, I am going to criticize him until he helps us get to the Super Bowl or until he is fired.

[YikesVikes]

You say you aren't a fan of Shaun Hill and that we could have done better. Yet, you don't want to define having Shaun Hill as the primary back-up as being an 'inadequate' choice? That doesn't make any sense.

To your point of a back-up becoming the face of the franchise - I have to more examples: Tom Brady and Tony Romo. One was a sixth round pick, one was undrafted. One is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. The other is one of the greatest UDFA finds of all-time. Do you think there weren't people who thought those two guys were just back-up QB fodder at one point in their careers? Steve Young, Doug Williams, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers would also like to have words with you.

To say that a back-up QB couldn't become the face of the franchise is short-sighted. It doesn't happen often, but, it is not unprecedented.

I don't see a point in arguing this anymore. It is clear you believe Spielman cannot be faulted for what happened in 2016. My position is he can and he refuses to be held accountable.

Before I go: I don't hate Spielman. He is a good person and has done nice things for the organization while he has been here. Don't put those words into my mouth. I do believe he is free to be criticized. He's been here ten years and we haven't had great success outside of 2009. So yeah, I am going to criticize him until he helps us get to the Super Bowl or until he is fired.

Not sure why people don't understand that we paid way too much for Sam. I think the move to add a QB was necessary and I believe they got the best QB they could in the trade. However, the cost in doing so was ridiculous. We gave up a 1st and a 4th for a guy that will never be better than top 15 QB in the league. Worst of all, the extra 17 million affected out cap and prevents us from extending some of our better players.

[chicagopurple]

and that huge over commitment for Bradford occured for a season that wasnt going anywhere with the crappy OL we have. Any one with a reality based view of the team would know that landing this "Big QB (not)" would in no way ensure a post season run. There were way too many defects in the team for that. It was NOT like landing Farve when "all the pieces were in place". Far from it.....We gave away a good chunk of our future building blocks when in fact we were entering yet ANOTHER rebuilding era.....it makes me puke.

[autobon7]

Not sure why people don't understand that we paid way too much for Sam. I think the move to add a QB was necessary and I believe they got the best QB they could in the trade. However, the cost in doing so was ridiculous. We gave up a 1st and a 4th for a guy that will never be better than top 15 QB in the league. Worst of all, the extra 17 million affected out cap and prevents us from extending some of our better players.

According to this chart https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stat ... ents/2016/ SB was actually rated 6th overall (qbr). Not too shabby.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You're simply wrong about that. Inadequate means "lacking the quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose". It's not false to say Hill fit that description or that Spielman's choice to settle for him as a backup fits it. It's an accurate description and if it were otherwise, the trade wouldn't have been necessary.

The word is being used correctly.
Which is why a team's backup should be capable of filling in for more than just a few games. If a team is relying on a backup that can't do that, they haven't sufficiently backed up their starter. It's still not clear who they want to become "the face of the franchise" so that part of your argument doesn't hold water. It's not even clear if the starting QB for 2018 is on the roster, although I'd say Bradford has a good shot at the job.
We're all aware of the situation. The point here is there are better, smarter ways to handle the backup position and it's long past time the Vikings changed their approach.

Oh, and enough of this "hate Spielman" garbage (and I use that word because I'm tired of this accusation being leveled against people). I don't hate him. I doubt HardcoreVikesfan hates him either. Criticizing the man isn't the same as hating him and Spielman absolutely deserves criticism for his role in the Vikings ongoing mediocrity.

Ok Jim you win. I'm beyond tired of going back and forth regarding the same things over and over. We do nothing but repeat ourselves.

[fiestavike]

I wonder what Spielman would have done re: Bradford if Heinecke had been healthy.

I also wonder how many, (and which) current backup QBs in the NFL the vikings might have had on the roster that would have prevented Rick from trading a 1st and 2nd-4th for Sam Bradford.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You say you aren't a fan of Shaun Hill and that we could have done better. Yet, you don't want to define having Shaun Hill as the primary back-up as being an 'inadequate' choice? That doesn't make any sense.

Ugghhh. Yes Shaun Hill was not a good choice. I've said that. But the reason for us trading for Bradford was a good move no matter who the backup was. Thats what I'm saying. It wasnt a result of "inadequate choices". We were able to get a legitimate starter instead of having to settle for a backup. Any backup for that matter. So all in all, we drastically improved our QB situation.

To your point of a back-up becoming the face of the franchise - I have to more examples: Tom Brady and Tony Romo. One was a sixth round pick, one was undrafted. One is a first-ballot Hall of Famer. The other is one of the greatest UDFA finds of all-time. Do you think there weren't people who thought those two guys were just back-up QB fodder at one point in their careers? Steve Young, Doug Williams, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers would also like to have words with you.

First of all, Aaron Rodgers was a first round pick. Doug Williams was not a good QB whatsoever. On top of that, yeah I know who Tom Brady and Tony Romo are and where they came from. I'm not saying it can't happen. It's just very very unlikely for a backup to turn into these guys. I mean look around the league. All the greats that we've watch for years like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rivers, Big Ben are near the end of their careers. Look at who is picking up the slack. Not much. Carr, Mariota, Winston maybe?? QBs are very down from what they use to be. I mean you and Jim continue to rip into Spielman's backup QB situation. Then what would you guys have done?? Drafted a guy?? Get an UDFA?? I mean what is it that Spielman has to do to please you guys in this regard is my question. Normally, you put a veteran behind a young QB. Thats what we did. Now we have an older QB so I would be surprised if we drafted one late. It just seems like you are looking for a "movie scene" to happen at backup QB. Not saying it can't, but I'm also not sure why you're holding out so much hope. Of course it's worth taking a shot, but I'm also fine with Keenum there and I've always been a Heinecke fan.

I don't see a point in arguing this anymore. It is clear you believe Spielman cannot be faulted for what happened in 2016. My position is he can and he refuses to be held accountable.

Then please sit here and tell me who shouldve been our backup QB so we didnt have to trade for Bradford. It was a CAREER THREATENING INJURY. You don't just rely on a backup to pick up the slack for years to come. Please tell me who we should've had at QB last year that could CONTINUE starting this year and be a viable option for possibly years to come. I would love to know because he must be some hidden gem that no other team knows about as well. How many QBs get knocked out for their career at that young of an age?? Not many. For all the bickering I'm hearing regarding this position, I'm also not hearing many answers.


Sorry regarding the Spielman thing. Just seems like theres a difference between guys that question some things he does and guys that complain about him every chance they get. My fault.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Worst of all, the extra 17 million affected out cap and prevents us from extending some of our better players.

It does not effect us extending some of our better players. The only "better player" due for an extension this year is Rhodes and there is still plenty of room to do that.

[Pondering Her Percy]

and that huge over commitment for Bradford occured for a season that wasnt going anywhere with the crappy OL we have. Any one with a reality based view of the team would know that landing this "Big QB (not)" would in no way ensure a post season run. There were way too many defects in the team for that. It was NOT like landing Farve when "all the pieces were in place". Far from it.....We gave away a good chunk of our future building blocks when in fact we were entering yet ANOTHER rebuilding era.....it makes me puke.

I really just don't understand some of the things you post on here. We "gave away a good chunk of our future building blocks" and "we're entering another rebuilding era"?? You literally couldn't be further off with those two statements.

First of all, this OL wasnt much different than last years and we made the playoffs and pretty much had the first game won. So if Teddy can do it with pretty much the same OL starting out the season, why couldn't Bradford?? Injuries to the OL and Teddy had AP. When we traded for Sam, we still had a healthy OL and still had AP.

And with Favre, I wouldnt say "all the pieces were in place". There we still quite a few holes. Favre made some of our deficiencies look a lot better. Ex: WR. Sidney Rice was nothing until Favre got there (and sure enough was nothing after that), Berrian was a 1 year wonder, and Harvin was a rookie mystery. That team was also aging quickly.

But to address the end of the post, what "building blocks did we give away"?? A kick returner?? A 29 year old nickel CB that landed a FIVE year deal somewhere else? Jeff Locke?? Rhett Ellison?? There were next to no building blocks that we "gave away".

And as for the whole "rebuilding" thing. Go look at the 2011 Vikings roster and compare it to this roster. This roster is eons above it. 2011 is when we started a rebuild. What needs to be "rebuilt" on this roster?? The OL (which we've already filled two holes), RB (have a very capable starter already, should draft one, make it an easy fix), DT, maybe a LB?. Sprinkle in some depth along the way. When has that ever been considered "rebuilding"?? That's very similar to what many other teams in the NFL do. Fills some holes/needs. The Browns are rebuilding. The 49ers are rebuilding. We are FAR from rebuilding.

[mansquatch]

I see I left this thread at the correct time. PODKY has taken over.

[Mothman]

Then please sit here and tell me who shouldve been our backup QB so we didnt have to trade for Bradford. It was a CAREER THREATENING INJURY. You don't just rely on a backup to pick up the slack for years to come.

Nobody has suggested they should have done that unless they actually had a backup capable of doing it.

You are putting forth self-contradictory arguments. It's contradictory to state Hill wasn't an inadequate choice while simultaneously saying he wasn't a good choice. It's self-contradictory to argue that Clemmings wasn't an inadequate choice for his role while also declaring him the worst tackle of the decade. You can't have it both ways, where the players are bad (or poor choices) but the Vikings somehow made good choices in putting them in their respective roles.

Please tell me who we should've had at QB last year that could CONTINUE starting this year and be a viable option for possibly years to come. I would love to know because he must be some hidden gem that no other team knows about as well.

As I think someone already pointed out to you, they could easily have drafted Prescott, who is literally doing what you wrote above: he came in for an injured starter last year, played very well and now looks like he could be a viable starter for years to come, Only time will tell but it's silly to act as if it's impossible or unreasonable when it's happening right before your eyes.

However, don't focus on Prescott alone because that's not the point. The idea is to find and develop young talent at the position. It's an idea that's been discussed in depth on this board in recent years. It's clearly a reasonable and potentially effective way to go, especially if a team already has uncertainty at QB, which the Vikes have had for almost a decade. Ideally, there should always be a quality "Plan B" QB on the roster, preferably a young player, even if the starter is also a young player. We've seen this approach benefit several teams in recent years: Dallas, Washington, Seattle (Wilson started as a rookie but he was drafted to be backup the free agent they thought would be their starter that year) and others over a longer period of time. Several players like that have gone on to become franchise QBs and win Super Bowls. If the primary backup is a veteran, he needs to be a veteran that can truly play and not just an aging "he'll do if we need him for a few games" journeyman QB like Hill.

How many QBs get knocked out for their career at that young of an age?? Not many.

The number doesn't matter. It happens (it's happened to the Vikings twice in this century) and often enough to know preparing for it is a wise move. It makes even more sense to prepare for it when the starter hasn't firmly established himself in the first place and an alternative might be necessary. Since Spielman's first season with the team, the Vikings have repeatedly made the mistake of putting all of their eggs in one basket at QB, at least when it comes to long term solutions to the problem. They did it with Jackson, Ponder and Bridgewater. How has that worked out for them? It's past time to explore a more sensible (and hopefully more effective) approach.

[CbusVikesFan]

May I remind everyone IF the Vikings would have drafted McCarron, these arguments would be moot. Even if they still drafted Teddy as well, Bradford wouldn't be here . For the life of me, I can't get over it. It was some of the dumbest drafting I've ever witnessed. If they move up one more time to pick a wr in the first round, I'm done. I threatened to do this before, actually calling the facility and telling them if they didn't draft Kevin Williams, I'm done. That's right, I take at least some credit for that. But I did do that. How did that work out?

[Mothman]

I see I left this thread at the correct time. PODKY has taken over.

People have clearly articulated why they're ticked off and comments like the one above aren't helpful.

[CbusVikesFan]

People have clearly articulated why they're ticked off and comments like the one above aren't helpful.

Well Jim,
If that's the way I feel no matter how undermining it is, it is my dismay to own. Tomorrow, it will be sunshine and roses. But I just feel we made a huge mistake not drafting McCarron.
podky? Acronym for. ..?