Spielman's performance

[psjordan]

Come on ... Teddy "Pro Bowl" Bridgewater was a sub that year when the actual selections couldn't and wouldn't go to the game.

Denigrate it as much as you want - the fact of the matter is Rick drafted a QB capable of what Teddy accomplished, whether with style points or not.

Is anybody actually suggesting Rick should be fired for a singular "offense" like mismanaging the backup QB position?

A few have implied it's a "main point", but no one ever mentioned "singular", including me.

The simplest way to express why the Vikings should replace Spielman is: he doesn't appear capable of building a Super Bowl winning team.

That's gonna leave a lot of GM's on the unemployment line. While I don't dismiss your take, I certainly feel Zimmer should be first in the firing line if "building a Super Bowl winner" is the criteria.

1.) The backup QB should be capable of stepping and playing for the starter, at a respectable level, for as long as necessary. Whether that's one game or 15, if a team doesn't have a backup that can at least step in and give them a chance to win every week, that's a failure of management. Joe Webb was an inadequate backup. Shaun Hill was an inadequate backup because the Vikes clearly thought he was too old to step in for the majority of a season.

Mannion's been our backup for two seasons. How can we say he's good or bad? On paper he's just fine as a backup. Could it be that this problem was solved two years ago?

But it wasn't a 0% benefit to the Patriots.

Zero benefit to the QB position of the Patriots.

9 years as GM (2012-2020).

Should have had you proof it before I posted!

... teams can find starters or even a Hall of Famer outside of the first round so it's worth looking and it's worth drafting the position, especially if you see something special in a player.

Sure. But lot's of backup QB's are acquired in ways other than drafting. And if the focus is "getting the guy", we've never really had the wicked draft capital. But even at that, see my comments on Rick's drafting - way too conservative WRT QB's IMO. I do not know if that is his nature or he's being steered that way.

Fire 'em anyway because if what we've seen unfold was the plan, the plan stunk.

Ha! But maybe there is a plan yet ...

[psjordan]

If you are taking requests, I'd vote for Colbert/Steelers (traditionally better than us) and Telesco/Chargers (traditionally worse than us). By "traditionally" I mean last 7-10 years.

No idea what those results will show, other than Colbert/Tomlin/Sarrett (groomed by Munchak) winning on the OL.

Sold. I have a newborn but will try to get a list together. The biggest issue is trying to nail the guys you have not really heard of from other teams. Prior to this season we were all on the Dru Samia train. I am sure their fanbase has guys that are unheralded but great and full of potential but horrible.

That would be awesome, congrats on the newborn!!

[S197]

And so now we have Cousins. Finally a guy who is durable. But that's all hindsight. Despite being snake bitten over, and over, and over, Rick still stubbornly plows ahead with his all-in move at QB.

The only question I have from your post is does Sean Mannion count as a third round pick? He's been our backup for two years now, had quite the college career, and a GM other than Rick felt he was worth a 3rd. Just so happens the Rams drafted him. If we had drafted him in the third instead of signing him as a FA, would that make a difference?

I realize we have no idea what he can and can't do on a sustained basis, but on paper is he not the ideal Cousins backup? Maybe Rick "learned" two seasons ago?

Good question. I think there's several aspects to drafting a QB when you have your starter. There's the contingency planning (my life insurance analogy) aspect and there's also the potential heir apparent aspect. I try to stay away from hindsight as much as I can because as you mention, it's incredibly difficult to find a good to franchise level QB.

Basically when you draft, you're trying to fill a role but with a great degree of difficulty. When you pick up a journeyman free agent, you have more of a known commodity and are generally signing the guy to either be a stop gap or someone who can help your starter with the cerebral stuff (the proverbial clipboard holder).

I think had we drafted Mannion it would have made a difference because in this respect you're drafting on potential and to fill a different void. Take Love for example. We have no idea if he sucks or will be a hall of famer. But it's clear the Packers drafted him to potentially be an heir apparent. Not a clipboard holder. I think this is also what the Rams did with Mannion. He didn't work out but at least for me, the effort was put forth. And that's really the key difference, effort.

I think this is different than signing a FA after a team has basically given up on him because now you have a body of work to evaluate. In 13 games, Mannion has thrown for 0 TD's and 3 interceptions. He hasn't played a ton but four years in LA is a reasonable amount of time to make a call I think on which type of free agent you are.

It's not the misses that peeves me, that's part of the game, it's not trying. It's as if Rick is almost scared to hurt his starter's feelings. They wear these iron sharpens iron shirts but what iron have we brought in to sharpen any of our QB's? There's never any competition. To me, a well composed team has all 3. Your starter, your journeyman, and your young buck to compete and push that starter. And I mean really compete, not the Kyle Sloter/Nate Stanely level of competition we bring in.

[Mothman]

That's gonna leave a lot of GM's on the unemployment line. While I don't dismiss your take, I certainly feel Zimmer should be first in the firing line if "building a Super Bowl winner" is the criteria

I agree but I don't think either one of them is capable of building a Super Bowl winning team which is why I'd replace them.

It doesn't seem like a particularly tough position when they've been given 7 and 9 years respectively. If a team actually wants to win a championship and not just put butts in seats and turn a profit, the capability to build a champion needs to be the bottom line. On the other hand, if the kind of extended-but-profitable mediocrity the Vikes have perfected is sufficient, Zimmer and Spielman are almost the ideal duo to sustain that mediocrity.

Mannion's been our backup for two seasons. How can we say he's good or bad? On paper he's just fine as a backup. Could it be that this problem was solved two years ago?

It's possible but in an assessment of Spielman's overall performance, past mistakes are still relevant.

Zero benefit to the QB position of the Patriots.

They started and won games (Cassel for the majority of a season). How is that of zero benefit? The moves they made at backup QB didn't end up leaving them with a good starter when Brady finally left but they were still beneficial both at the position and to the team.

Sure. But lot's of backup QB's are acquired in ways other than drafting. And if the focus is "getting the guy", we've never really had the wicked draft capital.

That's the point, they don't need to have it to find "the guy" or a capable starter like Cousins, who Washington drafted in R4. The Vikes could have had Russell Wilson without wicked draft capital. They could have had Lamar Jackson and if they'd simply kept the pick they traded for Bradford, they probably could have had Mahomes or Watson. There are opportunities beyond a mega-trade or an awful season that leads to a top 5 selection.

But even at that, see my comments on Rick's drafting - way too conservative WRT QB's IMO. I do not know if that is his nature or he's being steered that way.

I'm not sure it matters. If he's shrewd enough to see good opportunities to draft QBs but so susceptible to persuasion that he consistently gets steered away from them, the end result is the same and he's still the wrong guy for the job.

Ha! But maybe there is a plan yet ...

Sure, give him another decade or two and he'll probably put it all together.

[psjordan]

Zero benefit to the QB position of the Patriots.

They started and won games (Cassel for the majority of a season). How is that of zero benefit? The moves they made at backup QB didn't end up leaving them with a good starter when Brady finally left but they were still beneficial both at the position and to the team.

You're snipping my post man My post said:

"NE has drafted eight QB’s. Cassell did OK with NE when needed, five non-descript, Brissett and Garoppolo traded. Leave Cassell out and that’s a 0% hit rate for actually helping the NE roster survive the Brady departure. Throw Cassell on the hit list and say he beats our backups? You get up to 12.5%."

" ... survive the Brady departure"

[psjordan]

It's not the misses that peeves me, that's part of the game, it's not trying. It's as if Rick is almost scared to hurt his starter's feelings.

Maybe. But bringing in a kid who started four years at a decent Pac-10 school doesn't seem like chicken feed. But maybe Rick felt Mannion has shown all he can show so why not get him as an unquestioned backup. I don't know. But I do know that any thinking along those lines would most 100% assuredly have to be shared thinking/agreed-upon strategy.

[Mothman]

They started and won games (Cassel for the majority of a season). How is that of zero benefit? The moves they made at backup QB didn't end up leaving them with a good starter when Brady finally left but they were still beneficial both at the position and to the team.

You're snipping my post man My post said:

"NE has drafted eight QB’s. Cassell did OK with NE when needed, five non-descript, Brissett and Garoppolo traded. Leave Cassell out and that’s a 0% hit rate for actually helping the NE roster survive the Brady departure. Throw Cassell on the hit list and say he beats our backups? You get up to 12.5%."

" ... survive the Brady departure"

I know but I had already quoted you those comments in an earlier post and provided a more complete answer so I snipped 'em post the second time around for the sake of brevity. I can't be quoting entire paragraphs all day, man! I'm a busy fellow.

I do understand your point. In the end, their strategy still left them unprepared when the moment came but it was a good idea.

[S197]

It's not the misses that peeves me, that's part of the game, it's not trying. It's as if Rick is almost scared to hurt his starter's feelings.

Maybe. But bringing in a kid who started four years at a decent Pac-10 school doesn't seem like chicken feed. But maybe Rick felt Mannion has shown all he can show so why not get him as an unquestioned backup. I don't know. But I do know that any thinking along those lines would most 100% assuredly have to be shared thinking/agreed-upon strategy.

Well that’s why I said it’s situational. Drafting a decent 4-year starter from a Pac10 school is something I would acknowledge as an effort on trying to sharpen iron. Picking up a 4-year backup (6 now but 4 when he was signed) that has yet to throw an NFL touchdown is a different matter. It can be the same guy but very different motivations as to why he’s here.

And I’m sure it’s mutual. I recall reading an article that the main reason why they like Mannion is his ability to look at film and help Cousins with scouting and diagnoses. I don’t think it was Spielman that said it, it could have been Zimmer or Kubiak/Stefanski.

[VikingLord]

I think you meant the 2020 class. 2015 we won 11 games and had close to a top 10 defense with Kendricks and to a lesser extent, Hunter playing significant roles.

Yes, I meant 2020 class.

As for the 2015 team and defense, that was built by Spielman and coached by Zimmer.

So yeah, Kendricks was a rookie on a better overall team that was built and coached by the very same guys. I don't see how that strengthens your position.

2020 we have a bunch of rookies playing on defense because the guys ahead of them got hurt and oh by the way, the defense that is comprised by those rookies is arguably the worst in Viking's history. That doesn't make his draft a good one.

It doesn't make it a bad one, either. It just means the burden was shifted more towards those rookies this year than in the 2015 example.

It usually takes 3-4 years for a draft to be fairly evaluated anyway because it often takes that long for most drafted players to reach their full potential. So you're comparing a draft where that time has elapsed (2015) and where that team didn't have to rely on so many rookies to contribute with a team that had an abbreviated offseason (if it could be fairly called that) and had to heavily rely on many rookies to contribute.

That the 2020 rookies and team didn't do as well as the 2015 rookies and team really shouldn't be a surprise. If anything, that the 2020 team did so well is the bigger surprise. Yes, I know winning 7 games isn't doing well, but it is when I went into the season thinking they were a 3-5 win team. Even though the team didn't do well and didn't make the playoffs this year, in my view they hung together and largely overperformed.

Contributions like JJ's to the offense make drafts good in year 1. Contributions like being 2 of the worst CBs in NFL in terms of yards given up per route defended does not. Giving up top 10 pressures per pass block does not.

There is potential to be good with this draft class, but being a bad starter as a rookie is not evidence that a rookie is going be great.

I really can't refute your position because there isn't enough evidence to refute it. That there isn't evidence is just a function of the fact that enough time hasn't passed for the 2020 draft class to be fairly evaluated.

But I think there is enough evidence to say there is substantial potential for that group to be very good, and because so many of them were thrust into starting roles and trials-by-fire in their first year there is good reason to believe they'll mature faster than their less experienced counterparts.

I'll be shocked if most of these young players aren't showing substantial improvement by the start of next season.