Heading into the 2021 Offseason- FO/Coaching

[YikesVikes]

....need I say more? Like I said, the interceptions at record pace are great and all, but he's also on pace to give up the most yardage and TDs ever as a starting corner. So in the end, how good is Marcus Peters? Marcus Peters is like upstate NY weather. It's either really hot or really cold. That's Peters in a nutshell and to be honest, I'm not sure how much that really benefits a team? There are already a few teams that have noticed that it doesnt benefit their team and let him go. Those two teams? The Chiefs and Rams, two teams that have been to or won a SB over that span.

"Man-coverage grade: 79.6
The Ravens traded Kenny Young and a fifth-round draft pick to the Los Angeles Rams for one of the best cornerbacks in the NFL. Let that sink in. Sure, Peters’ aggressiveness ─ a big contributor to his league-high 27 interceptions since being drafted in 2015 ─ has led to him getting burnt on occasion. Peters is right enough when he does gamble and talented enough to where you are more than happy to live with those occasional miscues, though. Looking strictly at his time with the Ravens in 2019, Peters put up an even higher man coverage grade (86.9) than Gilmore from Week 7 through the postseason. It’s safe to say Baltimore is happy with their transaction."

Listen for all of his faults (tackling being the biggest) Peters has plenty that I don't love about him. However, you need to stop looking at the business side of the NFL (contracts, trades, cuts) and assuming that it only happens when an organization is unhappy with a player. Sometimes, the business side of things affects the football side of things.
You also neglect to point out that his tenure in KC came to an end and netted KC a 2nd and a 4th in return. You analogy about Peters being hot or cold isn't true. He like a lot of CBs have bad and good games. When it is all said and done, he is a better player then Waynes. None of this explains why Waynes is worthy of being the 11th pick in a draft BTW.

[YikesVikes]

Like I'm sorry but this logic is just laughable right now. It's like the most basic, bland, on the surface view of what a GM should be doing. You're practically saying Rick Spielman should be drafting "pick A's" value or better every time in the first round (and beyond I'm guessing). Like what? Okay, name me one GM that has done that or has even come close to that....like, ever? I'm literally just looking for one. Because I know you wont be able to list them because it is indeed that rare or near impossible for that matter. The best "GM" we've seen in the last 20 years is probably fricken Bill Belichick and he's the head coach! He's the only one that was legitimately able to sustain a dynasty for an extended period of time.

My logic is flawed because I believe a top 11 pick should more times than not be a STAR in the NFL? You have the tendency to try to move discussions into tangents that have nothing to do with what was said. Belichick is considered a good GM because he always drafts late in the draft, he finds talent late in the drafts, and he gets rid of players when their costs outweigh their value. How can I compare him to Rick. When was the last time the Pats picked in the top 10?

The team I would compare us to the most is the LA Chargers as both teams have been up and down the last 6 or so years. Make the playoffs one year and miss it the next. If you want to compare what their 1st rounders look like compared to ours... it is a bad look for us.

[VikingLord]

I don't have stats to back this up, but you don't put the Vikings recent 1st round picks into context.

My strong suspicion is that most teams have similar outcomes as the Vikings have with their first round picks. They will be able to point to some successful picks, average picks, and outright busts in the 1st round over the same time period. Some will have more hits and some more misses and maybe some will produce largely average outcomes, but without that context and based on what you've posted one would conclude that Spielman must be terrible.

Spielman isn't that bad. He's probably about average overall in terms of his drafts and the players he's acquired. The Vikings have notable talent on both sides of the football, whether that talent was acquired in the 1st round or not.

Hard to do so when we have more 1st rounders than anyone. However, I don't think most teams have missed on 4 out of 7 1st rounders... AND gave one away for Sam Bradford.... And just gave a 2nd away for a 6 game rental.

You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?

The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.

The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.

And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.

There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.

The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.

And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.

It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.

I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).

To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.

[StumpHunter]

Waynes was a low value pick. He gave us solid CB play for 3 seasons and then was gone. Good value for a 2nd round pick, not 11th overall and he is doing nothing for the Vikings to make us better atm.
Bradford was a bad value trade. The worst full time starting QB of the 2010's who went 7-8 as a starter for us and then got hurt.
Hughes is a bust.
Bradbury is a below average center two years into his career that was taken 18th overall. Center is a position many teams fill in later rounds and to justify being picked that high he needed to be one of the better centers in the NFL, not a developmental guy. A bad pick.
Gladney was terrible in his rookie season. Way to premature to call him a bust right now, but based on one season he is trending towards bust status.

That is how the Vikings have used their last 5 1st round picks. They hit a homerun with Buffalo's first and got JJ, but the above use of the team's most valuable asset to get better each season, along with poor allocation of cap space is why this team went 7-9 and struggled to beat the Jacksonville Jaguars.

I don't have stats to back this up, but you don't put the Vikings recent 1st round picks into context.

My strong suspicion is that most teams have similar outcomes as the Vikings have with their first round picks. They will be able to point to some successful picks, average picks, and outright busts in the 1st round over the same time period. Some will have more hits and some more misses and maybe some will produce largely average outcomes, but without that context and based on what you've posted one would conclude that Spielman must be terrible.

Spielman isn't that bad. He's probably about average overall in terms of his drafts and the players he's acquired. The Vikings have notable talent on both sides of the football, whether that talent was acquired in the 1st round or not.

Agreed, he has his moments and if he were an awful GM he wouldn't have survived as long as he did. But is he just good enough to not get fired or is he an irreplaceable piece this organization can't afford to lose? The 2 playoff wins during his tenure as GM points to him being just good enough to not get fired, and if that is the case, are people happy with a GM who does just enough to keep his job?

Here is an example of how the SB winning KC drafted in the 1st, just for context:

2015: Marcus Peters
2016: Traded back to 37 where they picked up Chris Jones
2017: Patrick Mahomes
2018: Patrick Mahomes
2019: Traded for Frank Clark
2020:Clyde Edwards-Helere.

[VikingLord]

Agreed, he has his moments and if he were an awful GM he wouldn't have survived as long as he did. But is he just good enough to not get fired or is he an irreplaceable piece this organization can't afford to lose? The 2 playoff wins during his tenure as GM points to him being just good enough to not get fired, and if that is the case, are people happy with a GM who does just enough to keep his job?

Here is an example of how the SB winning KC drafted in the 1st, just for context:

2015: Marcus Peters
2016: Traded back to 37 where they picked up Chris Jones
2017: Patrick Mahomes
2018: Patrick Mahomes
2019: Traded for Frank Clark
2020:Clyde Edwards-Helere.

I think two things emerge from your example:

- Some teams and GMs are better/luckier than others when it comes to drafting. That in terms does give them a competitive advantage over time.
- Such examples are exceptions and not the norm, just as there are exceptions of particularly poor results over time.

I think we can agree that Spielman and Zimmer have been pretty close to average in terms of drafts and player development, and the overall results on the field reflect that over their careers with the Vikings. They've had notable successes, but those tend to be washed out by their failures.

I also just want to make it clear - I'm not saying there is no cause to consider moving on from one or either. I'm just saying that it would depend in large part on who they are replaced with and on what basis the Vikings are making the move. If there was an obvious opportunity to upgrade with someone who is undeniably better or shows real promise, I'd be in support of it. It just has to be worth it and be likely to lead the Vikings to a better place than they would be otherwise.

[StumpHunter]

Agreed, he has his moments and if he were an awful GM he wouldn't have survived as long as he did. But is he just good enough to not get fired or is he an irreplaceable piece this organization can't afford to lose? The 2 playoff wins during his tenure as GM points to him being just good enough to not get fired, and if that is the case, are people happy with a GM who does just enough to keep his job?

Here is an example of how the SB winning KC drafted in the 1st, just for context:

2015: Marcus Peters
2016: Traded back to 37 where they picked up Chris Jones
2017: Patrick Mahomes
2018: Patrick Mahomes
2019: Traded for Frank Clark
2020:Clyde Edwards-Helere.

I think two things emerge from your example:

- Some teams and GMs are better/luckier than others when it comes to drafting. That in terms does give them a competitive advantage over time.
- Such examples are exceptions and not the norm, just as there are exceptions of particularly poor results over time.

I think we can agree that Spielman and Zimmer have been pretty close to average in terms of drafts and player development, and the overall results on the field reflect that over their careers with the Vikings. They've had notable successes, but those tend to be washed out by their failures.

I also just want to make it clear - I'm not saying there is no cause to consider moving on from one or either. I'm just saying that it would depend in large part on who they are replaced with and on what basis the Vikings are making the move. If there was an obvious opportunity to upgrade with someone who is undeniably better or shows real promise, I'd be in support of it. It just has to be worth it and be likely to lead the Vikings to a better place than they would be otherwise.

I think the basis for making the move is that they are average. Average doesn't win you Super Bowls, greatness does. Moving on from those two might mean you end up with below average or even bad, but in the end what did you really lose out on even if you do end up with that worst case scenario? A 10 win season where the team doesn't come close to beating the eventual SB winner? I have seen enough of those in my lifetime.

[YikesVikes]

Hard to do so when we have more 1st rounders than anyone. However, I don't think most teams have missed on 4 out of 7 1st rounders... AND gave one away for Sam Bradford.... And just gave a 2nd away for a 6 game rental.

You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?

The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.

The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.

And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.

There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.

The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.

And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.

It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.

I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).

To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.

Nah!
High first-rounders not only suppose to land but they are supposed to have much higher ceilings and floors. A player in the top 12 should be a Franchise altering player but not necessarily league, altering. Simply put Barr and Waynes are not. They are ok players but disappointments based on where they were drafted and that's why Waynes is no longer with us. I suspect that Barr wont be either.

If the illusion is caused by anything, it is the large number of low-quality picks our FO accumulates and attempts to hit on. 30 in the past 4 years or so. They hit on a couple and to us they look like geniuses. All teams have hit on late-round players and every roster in the league holds a couple. Match our AT vs. Green Bay's Aaron Jones or the Eagles Jason Kelce. We aren't special because we drafted Hunter and these guys in the 4th round. Almost every team has a gem on their roster.

[Pondering Her Percy]

....need I say more? Like I said, the interceptions at record pace are great and all, but he's also on pace to give up the most yardage and TDs ever as a starting corner. So in the end, how good is Marcus Peters? Marcus Peters is like upstate NY weather. It's either really hot or really cold. That's Peters in a nutshell and to be honest, I'm not sure how much that really benefits a team? There are already a few teams that have noticed that it doesnt benefit their team and let him go. Those two teams? The Chiefs and Rams, two teams that have been to or won a SB over that span.

"Man-coverage grade: 79.6
The Ravens traded Kenny Young and a fifth-round draft pick to the Los Angeles Rams for one of the best cornerbacks in the NFL. Let that sink in. Sure, Peters’ aggressiveness ─ a big contributor to his league-high 27 interceptions since being drafted in 2015 ─ has led to him getting burnt on occasion. Peters is right enough when he does gamble and talented enough to where you are more than happy to live with those occasional miscues, though. Looking strictly at his time with the Ravens in 2019, Peters put up an even higher man coverage grade (86.9) than Gilmore from Week 7 through the postseason. It’s safe to say Baltimore is happy with their transaction."

Listen for all of his faults (tackling being the biggest) Peters has plenty that I don't love about him. However, you need to stop looking at the business side of the NFL (contracts, trades, cuts) and assuming that it only happens when an organization is unhappy with a player. Sometimes, the business side of things affects the football side of things.
You also neglect to point out that his tenure in KC came to an end and netted KC a 2nd and a 4th in return. You analogy about Peters being hot or cold isn't true. He like a lot of CBs have bad and good games. When it is all said and done, he is a better player then Waynes. None of this explains why Waynes is worthy of being the 11th pick in a draft BTW.

Who wrote that?? Burnt on occasion?? Like I said he's given up more yards and TDs than ANY CB in that time span. That is an actual fact, I've posted that on here before more than once. So I can tell you that whoever wrote that, did not once look into how often he was really burned.

Yeah he got KC a 2nd and 4th because of the picks. Teams are going to take a chance on that hoping he improves in other areas. But do you not realize that he netted KC a 2nd and 4th and then netted the Rams Kenny Young and a 5th?? Just to let you know there is a drastic difference in the value of those two trades.

In regards to Waynes, I mean I explained not just Waynes but any player being drafted and how it applies to this logic you're coming up with. You literally called Trae Waynes and Anthony Barr busts because you claim they dont warrant #9 and #11. Sorry dude, but just because they werent the 9th best player or 11th best player doesnt mean they were a bust. Like I said, that's just silly.

You're also failing to factor in that 5 of the top 10 players taken in Barr's class were flops. So really there were only 4 guys taken ahead of Barr that I would say are "better players" than Barr. Actually, I would say only 3 players because I'd take Barr over Clowney any day right now. So the only ones ahead of Barr I would currently take are Khalil Mack, Mike Evans and Jake Matthews. So from there, when you take those 3 players and then add any top players that were drafted after Barr that are better than he is...how far is he really away from #9 best player? I sure can tell you it's not that far which makes you call him a "bust" sound that much more ridiculous.

Then go look at the 2015 class, the top 10 before Waynes was not much better than the top 8 taken ahead of Barr.

Winston- terrible
Mariota- terrible
Fowler- I'd say about even with Waynes
Cooper- good
Scherff- good (even though he's never healthy)
Williams- good
White- terrible
Beasley- fell of the face of the earth
Flowers- not good
Gurley- good for a couple years but too banged up to have any sort of longevity

....then there was Waynes. So same thing as Barr's year. Was Waynes really that far away from being the 11th best player in the draft? No.

So you can pull up your personal draft rubric all you want, in the end both players were "in the range" talent wise as where they were picked. Especially when you factor in the flops taken in front of them.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Hard to do so when we have more 1st rounders than anyone. However, I don't think most teams have missed on 4 out of 7 1st rounders... AND gave one away for Sam Bradford.... And just gave a 2nd away for a 6 game rental.

You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?

The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.

The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.

And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.

There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.

The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.

And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.

It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.

I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).

To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.

Wow, I must say you hit the nail on the head here. Good post

[Pondering Her Percy]

They are ok players but disappointments based on where they were drafted and that's why Waynes is no longer with us. I suspect that Barr wont be either.

1.) dude what? That is not why Waynes is no longer with us. Waynes is no longer with us because he became the leagues 12th highest paid corner in Cincy. Something we clearly couldnt afford. Do I think it was an overpay, yeah probably but unless you get guys for bargains, everything seems like an overpay now with the cap constantly going up. But with how Waynes played in the last few years, he was going to warrant something similar on the open market anyways. Do you really think teams are going to shell out $42 million for "busts"? No. If anything they will give them prove it deals.

2.) Well I can tell you you suspect wrong. Barr isnt going anywhere. The numbers I posted prove that he is a very effective LB still. He's a defensive captain and leader on this team. And no, Eric Wilson is not better. It's really not even close so save that argument.

[CharVike]

I think two things emerge from your example:

- Some teams and GMs are better/luckier than others when it comes to drafting. That in terms does give them a competitive advantage over time.
- Such examples are exceptions and not the norm, just as there are exceptions of particularly poor results over time.

I think we can agree that Spielman and Zimmer have been pretty close to average in terms of drafts and player development, and the overall results on the field reflect that over their careers with the Vikings. They've had notable successes, but those tend to be washed out by their failures.

I also just want to make it clear - I'm not saying there is no cause to consider moving on from one or either. I'm just saying that it would depend in large part on who they are replaced with and on what basis the Vikings are making the move. If there was an obvious opportunity to upgrade with someone who is undeniably better or shows real promise, I'd be in support of it. It just has to be worth it and be likely to lead the Vikings to a better place than they would be otherwise.

I think the basis for making the move is that they are average. Average doesn't win you Super Bowls, greatness does. Moving on from those two might mean you end up with below average or even bad, but in the end what did you really lose out on even if you do end up with that worst case scenario? A 10 win season where the team doesn't come close to beating the eventual SB winner? I have seen enough of those in my lifetime.

Average doesn't win you Super Bowls, greatness does --- did you ever hear of the name Doug Pederson?

[Mothman]

Hard to do so when we have more 1st rounders than anyone. However, I don't think most teams have missed on 4 out of 7 1st rounders... AND gave one away for Sam Bradford.... And just gave a 2nd away for a 6 game rental.

You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?

The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.

The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.

And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.

There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.

The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.

And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.

It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.

I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).

To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.

An exhaustive analysis of other NFL GMs to provide context/analysis for a pro- or anti-Spielman argument would require a massive, time-consuming effort and it would almost certainly be inconclusive because there's an undeniably subjective nature to all of this. Nobody (pro or con) does it because we all know it's not worth the time to confirm the obvious.

That level of analysis isn't necessary. Spielman is already compared to his peers. I've said many times, the results speak for themselves and at it's core, his job is not about drafting, it's about team-building. Drafting is just one component of the job. As a builder of teams, Spielman clearly falls short of some of his peers and stands above others. He's a middle-of-the-pack GM, which is essentially what you concluded above ("average to slightly above average overall"). That's precisely the problem and the source of most of the criticism. Those of us most critical of Spielman recognize that he's far from the worst GM in the NFL but we want to see a Vikings team that rises above the middle of the pack, wins a championship and becomes a perennial Super Bowl contender for a while, not just a team that has a shot at a wild card spot every 2 years and might, if the cards fall just right, advance to be blown out in the next round.

[YikesVikes]

They are ok players but disappointments based on where they were drafted and that's why Waynes is no longer with us. I suspect that Barr wont be either.

1.) dude what? That is not why Waynes is no longer with us. Waynes is no longer with us because he became the leagues 12th highest paid corner in Cincy. Something we clearly couldnt afford. Do I think it was an overpay, yeah probably but unless you get guys for bargains, everything seems like an overpay now with the cap constantly going up. But with how Waynes played in the last few years, he was going to warrant something similar on the open market anyways. Do you really think teams are going to shell out $42 million for "busts"? No. If anything they will give them prove it deals.

2.) Well I can tell you you suspect wrong. Barr isnt going anywhere. The numbers I posted prove that he is a very effective LB still. He's a defensive captain and leader on this team. And no, Eric Wilson is not better. It's really not even close so save that argument.

The irony of understanding that players change teams because of contracts and not always play but then using changing teams as your argument against other players. Teams shell out money for average players all the time. You still haven't addressed the point that he is average and was drafted at a position that a star should be. Stick to the discussion at hand.

I believe Barr has a good chance of being back next season 80/20. Mostly because the HC thinks he is one of his guys. This organization has a tendency to hold on to players that it should let go. Look at Kyle Rudloph and the insane contract that he currently has. He made 9+ million last year and was either the 3rd or 4th highest paid TE. He is paid like Kittles and Kelce. Kyle #### Rudolph. Insane!

[YikesVikes]

You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?

The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.

The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.

And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.

There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.

The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.

And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.

It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.

I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).

To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.

An exhaustive analysis of other NFL GMs to provide context/analysis for a pro- or anti-Spielman argument would require a massive, time-consuming effort and it would almost certainly be inconclusive because there's an undeniably subjective nature to all of this. Nobody (pro or con) does it because we all know it's not worth the time to confirm the obvious.

That level of analysis isn't necessary. Spielman is already compared to his peers. I've said many times, the results speak for themselves and at it's core, his job is not about drafting, it's about team-building. Drafting is just one component of the job. As a builder of teams, Spielman clearly falls short of some of his peers and stands above others. He's a middle-of-the-pack GM, which is essentially what you concluded above ("average to slightly above average overall"). That's precisely the problem and the source of most of the criticism. Those of us most critical of Spielman recognize that he's far from the worst GM in the NFL but we want to see a Vikings team that rises above the middle of the pack, wins a championship and becomes a perennial Super Bowl contender for a while, not just a team that has a shot at a wild card spot every 2 years and might, if the cards fall just right, advance to be blown out in the next round.

You just won both showcase showdowns.

[YikesVikes]

I think the basis for making the move is that they are average. Average doesn't win you Super Bowls, greatness does. Moving on from those two might mean you end up with below average or even bad, but in the end what did you really lose out on even if you do end up with that worst case scenario? A 10 win season where the team doesn't come close to beating the eventual SB winner? I have seen enough of those in my lifetime.

Average doesn't win you Super Bowls, greatness does --- did you ever hear of the name Doug Pederson?

He's not close to being an average coach.