OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by IrishViking »

Not to defend spielman at all but I have yet to see a convincing argument of what should have been done that doesn't depend entirely upon futurvision and hindosight.

most of the conversations seem to go along the lines of "litany of faliures regarding Oline and draft picks that could be attributed to Spielman..." Followed by "admittance that the absurd injury rate this year makes it impossible to determine how the oline would have performed this year"

Again, I am not defending him. I just find it interesting that all the defensive credit on drafts swings farther and farther to Zimmer with little evidence and all the offensive draft issue fall more and more on spielman with the same lack of evidence.

I think it would be silly to give him a free pass. But I think it is also silly to write off every good thing he has done as essentially blind luck that any GM could replicate but all his failures are things that would be completely remedied by replacing him.
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by IrishViking »

Also, apologies for going dark. My work blacklisted this site for a while as a gambling front...


Moth :nono:
User avatar
PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8641
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
x 28

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by PurpleKoolaid »

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I don't think you can say Sporano isn't "it" when he's regarded as one of the best OL coaches in the NFL
So how'd we get him?
I understand what you mean, but we have to have an Qline coach that makes the older ones play with the younger team. To get mean. Make a statement. Cause if we have a good oline and D line, along with an above average QB, we will start to become a year in, year out. Too bad evevone in the NFL know we will pay anything for OT's.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

IrishViking wrote:Also, apologies for going dark. My work blacklisted this site for a while as a gambling front...


Moth :nono:

Point that finger at Cliff, not me! :tongue:
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

IrishViking wrote:Not to defend spielman at all but I have yet to see a convincing argument of what should have been done that doesn't depend entirely upon futurvision and hindosight.
How can anyone be expected to make an argument about what should have been done (note past tense) without being accused of using hindsight? :) Such an argument literally requires looking back at choices that could or should have been made!
mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3836
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 117

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by mansquatch »

His point is that your argument is essentially "The OL things didn't work out, so we should can him in hopes of finding someone better." or "We haven't won a superbowl yet, so it's time for him to go."

It is the same reason why I've been on your case about it so much. As the rest of his post states: Why do we think we can so readily find someone who will do better?

Also, the argument against Spielman exists in a bit of silo. Everyone is saying he hasn't done enough HERE to win a championship. Well every year 31 GMs have that distinction. The question is more what has he done to get us closer? How does that compare to against the field? And over the same time period? My guess is we'll find that while he has a concentration of failure in one area he also has a huge amount of success in others.

Where I'm struggling making the leap is that the Vikings Failures on offense and specifically OL can be cured by replacing the GM. you guys are throwing around this notion as if it is a simple change and without risk. For me, I can't say any of us have made an adequate and quantified case about what Spielman has done or not done to justify canning him. It feels like a hail mary move to me and that is why I'm not on board with it.

If someone here can show me that Rick is not compettive vs at least the top 25% of the NFL, adjusted for rebuilding, then I'm not on board that a new hire at that position is the answer. IMO there is FAR more risk than reward.

PS: As an addendum ot this post, let us look to our friends to the East. Their GM picked the best QB to come out in the last 10 years. He then road a train to a SB victory in 2010. Since then his team has steadily declined despite having the best QB in Football. This same team is now in 3rd place in the division and each year ooks less and less competitive. Would you say that Ted Thompson is a great GM? He has won a championship. So he gets that box checked. I know many Packer Faithful and they all tell me that they appreciate the championship, but Thompson has wasted the prime of Roger's HOF career and has under performed given the greatness they have at the most important position in football.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Jordysghost »

mansquatch wrote:
PS: As an addendum ot this post, let us look to our friends to the East. Their GM picked the best QB to come out in the last 10 years. He then road a train to a SB victory in 2010. Since then his team has steadily declined despite having the best QB in Football. This same team is now in 3rd place in the division and each year ooks less and less competitive. Would you say that Ted Thompson is a great GM? He has won a championship. So he gets that box checked. I know many Packer Faithful and they all tell me that they appreciate the championship, but Thompson has wasted the prime of Roger's HOF career and has under performed given the greatness they have at the most important position in football.
In Thompsons SB win, Rodgers was 28- 11 TD INT ratio, under 4000 yards, and the D was significantly higher ranked then the O, not only that, but 3 of the Packers 4 playoff games came down to the D making a stop to protect a one possesion lead. (Team had 15 STARTERS on IR alone)

Idk what train your talking about that Thomson ride to the SB, but it doesnt appear to be the Rodgers train.

Steadily declined? Um, no? Since 2010, the Packers have gone 15-1, 11- 5, 8- 7- 1, 12- 4, 10- 6, and now pending this season. (Spoiler, its going to be 10- 6) That isnt exactly 'Steady decline'.

If you think Thompson has underperformed, then you hold him to the standard of being the hands down best gm in football, since Thompson took over the Packers win pct is second only to NE, and SBs second to the enigma that is the NY Giants. By all measure he has been seconded only to the Pats. (Though typically when we play them we are the better team, on 2010 when we barely lost with Matt Flynn, and 2014 where we beat them)

Sorry but winning the SB is about a lot of varying circumstances, not just QB, post spygate Bellichek has the same amount of SBs as Thompson, has he been a dissapointment? What about that loser Shula, who couldn't win with Marino? Or the 70 Vikes, Fran Tark and no SB win?

Unfortuantly many Packers fans are spoiled greatly by our past success, and refuse to take notice of just how immaculately impressive Thompson's run has been. Had Rodgers not gotten injured in 2014, this would probably be a far different conversation.
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

mansquatch wrote:His point is that your argument is essentially "The OL things didn't work out, so we should can him in hopes of finding someone better." or "We haven't won a superbowl yet, so it's time for him to go."
Except that's not my argument and that's never been my argument. It's a complete mischaracterization and honestly, I've put in a great deal of effort to convey a FAR more nuanced point of view so it's disappointing to read that you've come away with the impression above.

How many times do I have to specifically express that my issues with Spielman extend well beyond his handling of the offensive line before that point truly connects and sinks in?

As for the Super Bowl: I don't want Spielman replaced because the Vikes haven't won a Super Bowl yet. I want him replaced because I don't think he can build a team that will win one. That's a very different argument. If I believed he could build a champion, I'd be in favor of the team keeping him.
It is the same reason why I've been on your case about it so much. As the rest of his post states: Why do we think we can so readily find someone who will do better?
I don't understand your apparent conviction that it's unlikely or impossible for them to find someone who can do better. The answer to your question is simple: other NFL teams have made such management changes successfully and gone on to win championships. There is no logical reason to believe the pool of GM candidates has run permanently dry and no team could possibly change out their current GM for an upgrade that might build a better team.
Also, the argument against Spielman exists in a bit of silo. Everyone is saying he hasn't done enough HERE to win a championship. Well every year 31 GMs have that distinction. The question is more what has he done to get us closer? How does that compare to against the field? And over the same time period? My guess is we'll find that while he has a concentration of failure in one area he also has a huge amount of success in others.


Yes, every year 31 GMs have the distinction of failing to win the Super Bowl. Ironically, that's an argument that "exists in a bit of a silo". I'm not evaluating Spielman on a year-to-year basis, with each year isolated from the others. I'm evaluating his cumulative performance over a decade with the Vikings.

What has he done to get the Vikes closer? Not nearly enough. How does he compare against the field? Well, John Schneider became Seahawks GM in 2010 and they won a Super Bowl within 4 years. They almost won another one the following year. John Elway assumed the role of Broncos GM in 2012 after spending a couple years with the organization as an executive VP. The Broncos have been to 2 Super Bowls since then, winning one.

Over the time Spielman has been with Minnesota, 9 different teams have won the Super Bowl, that's more than 25% of the league. 13 different teams have played in the Super Bowl in that span. That's nearly 40% of the league. We could delve deeper but there are clearly teams out there with more successful management and leadership, teams that have been getting to and winning Super Bowls.
Where I'm struggling making the leap is that the Vikings Failures on offense and specifically OL can be cured by replacing the GM. you guys are throwing around this notion as if it is a simple change and without risk.
I have never said it's without risk. I've said it's a risk worth taking, which is quite different. I don't think it's simple either, just necessary.
If someone here can show me that Rick is not compettive vs at least the top 25% of the NFL, adjusted for rebuilding, then I'm not on board that a new hire at that position is the answer. IMO there is FAR more risk than reward.
So what? The reward for sticking with Spielman appears to be medicority. I see no reason for the Vikings to timidly cling to that mediocrity while other, better-managed teams win titles.

I'm not sure how you'd like someone to illustrate to your satisfaction that Rick Spielman isn't competitive vs. the top 25% in the NFL. Here are some simple answers: As I said above, over the time Spielman has been with Minnesota, 9 different teams have won the Super Bowl, that's more than 25% of the league. I'm certain if you check you'll find the Vikings aren't in the top 8 teams in the NFL in winning percentage during Spielman's 10 years with the team (or his nearly 5 full seasons as GM). I seriously doubt they're among the top 8 in playoff appearances over the past decade either and we know they aren't in the top 25% of the league in playoff wins over that span (or since Spielman ascended to the GM position).
PS: As an addendum ot this post, let us look to our friends to the East. Their GM picked the best QB to come out in the last 10 years. He then road a train to a SB victory in 2010. Since then his team has steadily declined despite having the best QB in Football. This same team is now in 3rd place in the division and each year looks less and less competitive.
"Steadily declined"? They went 15-1 the following season. They haven't won another Super Bowl so they've definitely declined from that high point but they've made the playoffs eight years in a row and were an OT loss away from going back to the Super Bowl in 2014.

They're currently in 3rd place in the division but they're also 6 seasons removed from that SB win and again, they've reached the postseason every year. They nearly returned to the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. That's not a steady fall from the top.
Would you say that Ted Thompson is a great GM? He has won a championship. So he gets that box checked. I know many Packer Faithful and they all tell me that they appreciate the championship, but Thompson has wasted the prime of Roger's HOF career and has under performed given the greatness they have at the most important position in football.
Then frankly, they lack perspective. Rodgers' career can hardly be considered "wasted" when he's actually won a Super Bowl. I don't think Thompson is a great GM but I think he's a much better GM than Spielman and he's at least managed to accomplish two things I'd love to see the Vikings accomplish: winning a title (something they have never done) and fielding a team that can reach the postseason and be competitive in the playoffs every year for an extended period of time. As an example, Thompson makes a poor case for retaining Spielman. His team has had far more success in the NFC North over the same period of time.
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by IrishViking »

That's a fair response.

I guess my response would be that I don't feel there is enough evidence to support that Spielman failed versus just took a risk that didn't pan out.


to make a very simple statement.

I think that Spielman made the decision this year and in the offseason to say "we are going to go in with a subpar to average Oline in order to eliminate the question marks at all our other positions for the first time in (insert laughably long time here)." I think it was a decent move. I think it was a solid bet. I think it was an acceptable risk.

It utterly blew up in his face but to me the difference in opinion stems from the fact that many here think that Spielman took a massive risk with the roster by doing this; IE scorched down an icy freeway in bald tires at night in a desperate bid to win. I see it as more, going 10 over the speed limit in winter tires and two of them burst and his engine started on fire. You can argue that 10 over is 10 over and hes at fault. But was 10 over REALLY the reason it all fell apart? Maybe he should have gotten the engine looked at or double checked the tire pressure that day... But really, how many days a week do you double check your tire pressure and give your engine the 10 point inspection before leaving :lol:

I get in the analogy it is debatable how much of a "risk" not fixing the oline was. But I don't think it was a matter of Spielman, 6 weeks in, walking over to Norv and saying

"Those guys, the big ones in front of Bradford... what are they doing on the field..." "uh huh" "... so wait... I am in charge of that?!"

He made a calculated decision it failed, but as others pointed out, so do 31 GMs every year. That might be unfair. I would say there are probably, rough guess. 10 teams every year that if they had made one major personnel change or doing a major thing differently they would have had a much much better shot at a superbowl.

Any GM we get is going to do the exact same thing; Make calculated decisions and cost benefit choices.

Another way to see my side is I fail to see the benefit to having a solid Oline right now with no QB and a much weaker Dline and Linbacker core. We would be stringing him up over focusing on the Oline when our D cant stop anyone or we dont have a QB to protect or weapons to take advantage of the protection.


Either way. It seems that Zimmer and Spielmen have a solid relationship and that Spielmen... "spoils?" Zimmer with high defensive picks when we should probably spend the picks somewhere else. I don't see either going until the other does for at least a couple more years.

He has nailed some good picks. On BOTH sides of the ball. It is disingenuous (not saying you do it, but some here do) to mitigate every favorable and positive decision made as in spite of him and all the poor choices due to him.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

IrishViking wrote:That's a fair response.
Thanks. Just to be clear, my initial response to you was meant to be lighthearted, not a challenge that would kickstart the whole Spielman argument again. :) Oops!
I guess my response would be that I don't feel there is enough evidence to support that Spielman failed versus just took a risk that didn't pan out.

to make a very simple statement.

I think that Spielman made the decision this year and in the offseason to say "we are going to go in with a subpar to average Oline in order to eliminate the question marks at all our other positions for the first time in (insert laughably long time here)." I think it was a decent move. I think it was a solid bet. I think it was an acceptable risk.

It utterly blew up in his face but to me the difference in opinion stems from the fact that many here think that Spielman took a massive risk with the roster by doing this; IE scorched down an icy freeway in bald tires at night in a desperate bid to win. I see it as more, going 10 over the speed limit in winter tires and two of them burst and his engine started on fire. You can argue that 10 over is 10 over and hes at fault. But was 10 over REALLY the reason it all fell apart? Maybe he should have gotten the engine looked at or double checked the tire pressure that day... But really, how many days a week do you double check your tire pressure and give your engine the 10 point inspection before leaving :lol:

I get in the analogy it is debatable how much of a "risk" not fixing the oline was. But I don't think it was a matter of Spielman, 6 weeks in, walking over to Norv and saying

"Those guys, the big ones in front of Bradford... what are they doing on the field..." "uh huh" "... so wait... I am in charge of that?!"

He made a calculated decision it failed, but as others pointed out, so do 31 GMs every year. That might be unfair. I would say there are probably, rough guess. 10 teams every year that if they had made one major personnel change or doing a major thing differently they would have had a much much better shot at a superbowl.

Any GM we get is going to do the exact same thing; Make calculated decisions and cost benefit choices.
Yes, but some are better at it than others and I think the Vikings need a better GM. It's that simple. As I've been saying all along, my opinion that Spielman should be replaced is not simply a reaction to the OL problems this season. I see those problems as symptomatic of deeper issues.
Either way. It seems that Zimmer and Spielmen have a solid relationship and that Spielmen... "spoils?" Zimmer with high defensive picks when we should probably spend the picks somewhere else. I don't see either going until the other does for at least a couple more years.
I'm guessing that's exactly how it will play out.
He has nailed some good picks. On BOTH sides of the ball. It is disingenuous (not saying you do it, but some here do) to mitigate every favorable and positive decision made as in spite of him and all the poor choices due to him.
I agree and I find it equally disingenuous when people try to wipe the slate clean for him prior to 2012. As you said, he's made some good picks and some bad picks. Coaches have undoubtedly had some influence on many of those choices over the years. However, as far as I'm concerned, the draft is just one part of a larger team-building and player personnel picture anyway.
mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3836
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 117

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by mansquatch »

Jim I think my problem I'm not finding your nuanced case to be that persuasive.

I still think this roster is a few injuries away from being top 4 in the NFC and perhaps top 4 in the NFL. So for me, it is really hard to say the guy you are blaming for the roster is bad. As I said several weeks ago, they really were a bad kicker away from being a top 4 team LAST season. In spite of the OL woes. Likewise this season the same kicker cost them. Now I get it, their record is their record. But a roster that is one position away like just doesn't add up to a bad GM, IMO. So yes, I find it EXTREMELY risky to throw a guy who built that out for hopes that instead of top 4 you are #1. How confident are you in the Wilf's to strike gold like that given their hiring history?

I just don't think your view stands up to this question: If they were a missed 27yd kick away from the cream of the NFC LAST season and then is it not fair to say that whatever mistakes that were made in prior seasons, they have improved on them since suddenly they are relevant. Based on that premise, then the only place I can look to take your position is the 2016 squad. For me it is REALLY hard to get past the IR list for this season as well as the kicker. It still feels like this is a competitive team, despite the worst injury situation in the league by most accounts. Again, given the circumstance, it is hard for me to see the GM as the root of the problem. IMO it could just as likely be the training staff.

So I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

As to GB comments that 15-1 team failed to win a playoff game, the only 15-1 team with that dubious distinction. If championships are the goal, then that is regression. They were much more competitive the year SEA won the SB. But since then they've been declining unable to get past strong defensive teams, most notably Jim Harbaugh's 49ers.

FWIW, the Qowboys are likely to be this season's 2011 GB Packers. They will march into the playoffs with the best record in football and get beaten. Their defense is substandard and their offense will lack the punch needed to carry them past a playoff caliber defense.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Jordysghost »

mansquatch wrote:Jim I think my problem I'm not finding your nuanced case to be that persuasive.

I still think this roster is a few injuries away from being top 4 in the NFC and perhaps top 4 in the NFL. So for me, it is really hard to say the guy you are blaming for the roster is bad. As I said several weeks ago, they really were a bad kicker away from being a top 4 team LAST season. In spite of the OL woes. Likewise this season the same kicker cost them. Now I get it, their record is their record. But a roster that is one position away like just doesn't add up to a bad GM, IMO. So yes, I find it EXTREMELY risky to throw a guy who built that out for hopes that instead of top 4 you are #1. How confident are you in the Wilf's to strike gold like that given their hiring history?

I just don't think your view stands up to this question: If they were a missed 27yd kick away from the cream of the NFC LAST season and then is it not fair to say that whatever mistakes that were made in prior seasons, they have improved on them since suddenly they are relevant. Based on that premise, then the only place I can look to take your position is the 2016 squad. For me it is REALLY hard to get past the IR list for this season as well as the kicker. It still feels like this is a competitive team, despite the worst injury situation in the league by most accounts. Again, given the circumstance, it is hard for me to see the GM as the root of the problem. IMO it could just as likely be the training staff.

So I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

As to GB comments that 15-1 team failed to win a playoff game, the only 15-1 team with that dubious distinction. If championships are the goal, then that is regression. They were much more competitive the year SEA won the SB. But since then they've been declining unable to get past strong defensive teams, most notably Jim Harbaugh's 49ers.

FWIW, the Qowboys are likely to be this season's 2011 GB Packers. They will march into the playoffs with the best record in football and get beaten. Their defense is substandard and their offense will lack the punch needed to carry them past a playoff caliber defense.
You seemingly have no clue what you are talking about, "More competetive the year SEA won the SB"? My dude, we were 8-7-1 that year.

The Packers have gotten over plenty of good Ds in the playoffs, Bears, Steelers, Cowboys, I dont think their is any doubt they outplayed the Squawks and gave it up, which reminds me, why are you quick to excuse Spielman with "He almost this, almost that" but not willing to do the same for GB? BTW, the cream of the crop in the NFC is not the divisional round, its the conference round, TT has gotten there 3 times.

Furthermore, I think there is a reason you ignored my entire post.

Its like, you prop up Spielman for a 11- 5 season with a playoff loss, and put down Thompson for a 15-1 season and playoff loss. :confused:
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

mansquatch wrote:Jim I think my problem I'm not finding your nuanced case to be that persuasive
That's fine. I had no expectation of persuading many people to agree with me when I finally adopted this position. I just ask that people not oversimplify or misrepresent it.
I still think this roster is a few injuries away from being top 4 in the NFC and perhaps top 4 in the NFL. So for me, it is really hard to say the guy you are blaming for the roster is bad.
I'm not even saying he's bad. I've made that clear too.
As I said several weeks ago, they really were a bad kicker away from being a top 4 team LAST season. In spite of the OL woes. Likewise this season the same kicker cost them. Now I get it, their record is their record. But a roster that is one position away like just doesn't add up to a bad GM, IMO. So yes, I find it EXTREMELY risky to throw a guy who built that out for hopes that instead of top 4 you are #1. How confident are you in the Wilf's to strike gold like that given their hiring history?

I just don't think your view stands up to this question: If they were a missed 27yd kick away from the cream of the NFC LAST season and then is it not fair to say that whatever mistakes that were made in prior seasons, they have improved on them since suddenly they are relevant.
I think they've improved the overall team but I don't think they've learned much from past mistakes because they continue stepping into some of the same holes. That's one of my main arguments against Spielman.

Regarding the Wilfs judgment: arguing that they've made a good choice with Spielman seemingly undermines your point about their judgment. Saying they can't be trusted to make a good hiring decision while simultaneously arguing that they've already made one (and presumably two, if we include Zimmer) is somewhat contradictory.

Personally, I think they've shown progress over the course of their ownership and I believe finding a better GM is the next logical step.
Based on that premise, then the only place I can look to take your position is the 2016 squad. For me it is REALLY hard to get past the IR list for this season as well as the kicker. It still feels like this is a competitive team, despite the worst injury situation in the league by most accounts. Again, given the circumstance, it is hard for me to see the GM as the root of the problem. IMO it could just as likely be the training staff.

So I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Which is fine but please understand, I'm not arguing that they aren't a competitive team. I'm not arguing that Spielman is a bad GM. I'm arguing that for too much of his tenure, including 2016, they've been mediocre and I personally believe the preponderance of evidence suggests Spielman is the wrong man to build a championship team. To me, the signs point firmly to that conclusion. He can build a team that reaches the playoffs. I seriously doubt he can build a champion.
IrishViking
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by IrishViking »

Moth, out of curiosity. Spielmen is fired 2 days after the GB game. Who would you like to replace him? Who, realistically would you see being a marked improvement over Spielmen that we could realistically get? Is there a former GM, an unhappy current one, or a hyper sucessful assistant GM you think we could get?

Honestly curious as to what you see out there.
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: OL Draft: Vikes vs NFL

Post by Mothman »

IrishViking wrote:Moth, out of curiosity. Spielmen is fired 2 days after the GB game. Who would you like to replace him? Who, realistically would you see being a marked improvement over Spielmen that we could realistically get? Is there a former GM, an unhappy current one, or a hyper sucessful assistant GM you think we could get?

Honestly curious as to what you see out there.
I'm not exactly in a position to know who the best candidates would be but if I had the Wilf's resources, I would certainly be doing the research. I have no doubt there are qualified individuals out there. Personally, I would look at executives with other teams who seem ready to take the next step or perhaps are ready for a change of scenery, particularly people with some football background who have been a part of successful front offices.

A few potential candidates:

Patriots Director of Player Personnel Nick Caserio
Ravens assistant G.M. Eric DeCosta
Chiefs director of football operations Chris Ballard

There are others out there too. I posted a little more about this on page 2 of the thread we have going about Rick Spielman.

I have no idea if any of them would be a marked improvement over Rick Spielman. My point all along has been that it's necessary to seek that person.
Post Reply