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

[Mothman]

Jim winning is a standard, but again, if the team loses, is it ALWAYS the GM's fault?

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.

]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 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.

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'd say he's somewhere in between for the various reasons you cited above.

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 think you have to judge him on both wins and losses and how well he's doing in other aspects of the job.

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 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.

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.

[PurpleMustReign]

To echo something Jim said earlier, I don't know how anyone can say a GM is doing a good job when the team he has been in charge of for the better part of 10 years has one playoff victory in that time and only played in five playoff games (if memory serves, and I think three of the five have been at home). He has made some good moves, but to say he has done a good job is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

[Mothman]

To echo something Jim said earlier, I don't know how anyone can say a GM is doing a good job when the team he has been in charge of for the better part of 10 years has one playoff victory in that time and only played in five playoff games (if memory serves, and I think three of the five have been at home). He has made some good moves, but to say he has done a good job is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

At the very least, he's not above some reasonable criticism, which is the underlying point I was trying to make with that comment.

[fiestavike]

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.
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.
I'd say he's somewhere in between for the various reasons you cited above.
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 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.

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.

There's plenty to criticize Spiels on. I still think its very difficult to discern how much of that falls on continuity during his tenure. Much of that might ultimately fall on the Wilfs for Childress/Frazier. I honestly can't say. Its unknowable. I could decide on a position and make a case for it, but that seems a silly thing to do.

If one wishes to use some performance assessment thats fine, but there is zero reason to think its going to be assessing the Truth. It will just be assessing whatever arbitrary standard you decide you want to assess. It requires knowledge and expertise to make an accurate assessment, and we have neither.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

Jim winning is a standard, but again, if the team loses, is it ALWAYS the GM's fault? If say for example, you start 12 different players on the OL due to injury is that the GM's fault? Just as the SB victory is too simplistic, so are the wins/losses.

No one is arguing every win and loss is on Rick Spielman.

Those who feel Spielman deserves criticism are not pretending injuries never happened. What we are saying is the offensive line was a mess coming into 2016 because of the lack of investment into the line that stretches before the 2016 offseason alone. It has been a problem this entire decade.

If a team is rebuilding you tolerate a lack of wins. Until when? Why?

This team has 're-built' TWICE this decade ALONE. The time for tolerance over lack of wins ended last year.

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?)

Not when the GM refuses to invest assets into an already poor offensive line and volatile back-up QB position. That is my answer as it pertains to the 2016 season.

Your question is empirically hypothetical in nature. Therefore, hypothetically, if we had acquired even one different offensive starter sometime before the beginning of the 2016 season, are we even having this discussion? Not at all because that one event would have multiple rippling effects that impairs the time continuum.

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?

Coaching is coaching. The GM has no responsibility for coaching other than hiring the guy(s) that fit his vision for the team. No one is arguing Spielman deserves blame for our coaching blunders this season.

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...".

Wins and losses are volatile and unpredictable. Does a GM 'win' or 'lose' a team a game? Not directly. However, their decisions indirectly affect a game's outcome.

Liken it to this: If someone eats McDonalds and other high-caloric food for a majority of their meals and dies at the age of 50 - did their meal choices cause their death or did it contribute to it?

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!!!

There isn't a comparable example in 2016 to base any definitive conclusion on - you are right to say we cannot 'know' for certain as far as 2016 is concerned. I wouldn't say what happened to the Vikings this season was unprecedented however.

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.

It's not black and white as you are presenting.

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?

Any GM that can put their team into a position to contend for and win a Super Bowl is a great GM. Ted Thompson has more Super Bowl wins than we do in our entire history as an organization. Winning in the NFL doesn't mean squat if you don't win a Super Bowl (hence, the only accomplishment that truly matters in the NFL).

If Rick Spielman's decisions lead us to a Super Bowl victory, he becomes a great GM. He literally will have accomplished what only 51 other GMs have managed to do in the history of the game (hence, the ultimate hiring qualification for a GM).

In my opinion, winning a championship is the only true indication as to what makes a GM 'great.'

"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?

It is a moot point for 2017. Rick Spielman is the GM of the Minnesota Vikings in 2017. No one can even attempt to answer that question until the 2017 season has concluded.

[Mothman]

There's plenty to criticize Spiels on. I still think its very difficult to discern how much of that falls on continuity during his tenure. Much of that might ultimately fall on the Wilfs for Childress/Frazier. I honestly can't say. Its unknowable. I could decide on a position and make a case for it, but that seems a silly thing to do.

If one wishes to use some performance assessment thats fine, but there is zero reason to think its going to be assessing the Truth. It will just be assessing whatever arbitrary standard you decide you want to assess. It requires knowledge and expertise to make an accurate assessment, and we have neither.

It's increasingly difficult to tell whether you're being nihilistic or just non-committal.

[fiestavike]

It's increasingly difficult to tell whether you're being nihilistic or just non-committal.

The exact opposite of nihilistic.

[Mothman]

The exact opposite of nihilistic.

So you're more of an existential football fan then?

[fiestavike]

So you're more of an existential football fan then?

*edit. I believe deeply in Truth. I think thats the better way to say it.

[Mothman]

*edit. I believe deeply in Truth. I think thats the better way to say it.

[PurpleKoolaid]

I'm not "twisting myself into knots". And of course, most arguments I've had regarding Spielman have been "false" in your eyes. I've openly came out and criticized him many of times. I've also said that if we passed on OL and RB in this class, he's going to start losing my liking as well. This is what I'm referring to when I say ""see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear". Twice now, I've been accused of defending any or almost any criticism against him which is 110% false. Like I said, your only seeing what you want to see. I supposedly, according to PK, am even in favor of the Carlson signing which I've spoke out about MULTIPLE times saying it was a terrible move. This is why I'm beyond done going back and forth with you guys about Spielman. Just move on for gods sake

This is a thread about Rick. Did you not expect to see negative comments about him. Or just have us move on to the positive things he's done?

[PurpleKoolaid]

To echo something Jim said earlier, I don't know how anyone can say a GM is doing a good job when the team he has been in charge of for the better part of 10 years has one playoff victory in that time and only played in five playoff games (if memory serves, and I think three of the five have been at home). He has made some good moves, but to say he has done a good job is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

^

[CbusVikesFan]

Who did you like instead of Kalil? From my recollection it was between him, Blackmon, and Claiborne on this board.

I preferred TB over Carr. You do realize a good amount of people on this forum wanted Manziel right?

I just feel like a lot of this is hindsight. But if you were banging the table for Kuechly in 2012 and Carr over Manziel/Bridgewater then I'll give you credit. I just don't remember it being as black and white as you do.

Hell, I don't remember who I preferred over Kalil. I liked the pick for the most part. I think we could have used a LB sooner than later. And I didn't want TB or JM. I wanted to draft Dline or Oline and draft AJ McCarron later on.I've said it about a million times. Just as I do this year. It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if we drafted mostly linemen and throw a qb, cb, S, in there somewhere. After thinking about it for a minute, if all the lineman drafted in the same year and contractually speaking we have to sign "all" of them or lose them, I would rather face that scenario than having to plug a hole every year within the lines. To add further to that what I mean it would be nice to have that problem. All 4 guys up front on offense are worth keeping and/or trading. Not many in purple as a whole to say that. More than a few though.

[S197]

I think the 10 year comment is a little unfair as it insinuates he had control of this team for a decade when we know that there was a totally different dynamic before Zimmer. Spielman didn't hire Childress nor did he hire Frazier. Heck, he didn't even get to interview anyone before Frazier was hired.

The defense was poor under Frazier. At times, downright terrible. You have to go back to Tomlin to find a decent defense and even then it was a bi-polar defense that was great against the run and terrible against the pass. Zimmer is the first to bring a more balanced defense, that's not great in all aspects but pretty good all around. I think special teams has improved as well, Walsh being the exception. Coverage has improved and the Vikings had two of the better returners in the NFL in Sherels and Patterson. That's 2/3rds of the team.

That's not to say Rick should not be criticized, I think he's handled the QB position poorly. I think the scouting for the O-line has also been rather poor.

But I also see a team with some pretty good pieces. The Falcons went 8-8 the previous year with a similar hot start followed by a big let down. Look where they were this year and they had no where near the amount of adversity the Vikings faced. I realize no one's position is going to change this offseason, you're either tired of losing or cautiously optimistic. Maybe both. Anyway, that's my take, I'll bow out now as I really feel like things are going around in circles.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This is a thread about Rick. Did you not expect to see negative comments about him. Or just have us move on to the positive things he's done?

No I never said that. I just have no desire to go back and forth with you two about it anymore and repeat the same stuff over and over in a different context. It gets nowhere. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. I'll talk to others about him but our arguments are endless and repetitive and have gone on long enough. Hence why I've said move on 5 times.