Could Sharrif Floyd's Vikings' tenure be over?

[Banquo]

Rough drafts the past few years. Also, not many O-line players.

Players in bold no longer on Vikings roster.

2016
1. LAQUON TREADWELL WR
2. MACKENSIE ALEXANDER, CB
3. NO CHOICE
4. WILLIE BEAVERS, T
5. KENTRELL BROTHERS, LB
6. MORTIZ BÖHRINGER, WR

2015
1. TRAE WAYNES, CB
2. ERIC KENDRICKS, LB
3. (A) NO CHOICE
3. (B) NO CHOICE
3. (C) DANIELLE HUNTER, DE
4. T.J. CLEMMINGS, DE
5. (A) NO CHOICE.
5. (B) MyCOLE PRUITT, TE
5. (C) STEFON DIGGS, WR,
5. (D) NO CHOICE
6. (A) TYRUS THOMPSON, T

2014
1. (A) NO CHOICE
1. (B) ANTHONY BARR, LB
1. (C) TEDDY BRIDGEWATER, QB
2. NO CHOICE.
3. (A) SCOTT CRICHTON, DE
3. (B) JERICK McKINNON, RB
4. NO CHOICE.
5. (A) DAVID YANKEY, G
5. (B) NO CHOICE.
5. (C) NO CHOICE.
6. (A) ANTONE EXUM, S

2013 (Drafted 23rd)
1. (A) SHARRIF FLOYD, DT
1. (B) XAVIER RHODES, CB
1. (C) CORDARRELLE PATTERSON, WR
2. NO CHOICE.
3. NO CHOICE.
4. (A) NO CHOICE.
4. (B) GERALD HODGES, LB
5. JEFF LOCKE, P
6. (A) NO CHOICE.
6. (B) JEFF BACA, G, UCLA.

Excluding 2016 because it's just too soon, I don't actually think this is much of a rough stretch.

Coming out of three years with Rhodes, Barr, Waynes, Kendricks, Hunter, and Diggs despite injury issues with other players who were arguably "hits" in Floyd and Bridgewater is pretty darn good when put in the context of what's typical around the league. I think one should also consider that a guy like Patterson, while clearly not a "hit" of a first rounder, has still brought value to the team. He's arguably been the best KR in the league since beinng drafted, and has accounted for 16 total touchdowns-- that's not an utter loss. Obviously you hope for better than this, but you can find more teams that did worse than that haul than did better.

[Banquo]

To illustrate the point, I would encourage people to look at our haul of studs/starters out of that three year span vs. the rest of the division. I don't think the Lions, Packers, or Bears drafted particularly poorly over than span and yet I would say the Vikings came away with the best group of players by a long shot.

[Pondering Her Percy]

...because he is no longer on the roster?

Sorry misread that

[allday1991]

To illustrate the point, I would encourage people to look at our haul of studs/starters out of that three year span vs. the rest of the division. I don't think the Lions, Packers, or Bears drafted particularly poorly over than span and yet I would say the Vikings came away with the best group of players by a long shot.

If we keep getting the better drafts how come we always suck and never improve. makes no sense.

Vikings = good draft Results= regression
Packers = ok draft results= minor increase
lions= ok draft results= major increase
Bears= ok draft results = minor increase

maybe we are seeing this with purple sunglasses

[Banquo]

If we keep getting the better drafts how come we always suck and never improve. makes no sense.

Vikings = good draft Results= regression
Packers = ok draft results= minor increase
lions= ok draft results= major increase
Bears= ok draft results = minor increase

maybe we are seeing this with purple sunglasses

A few thoughts on that...

I don't think you can attribute the teams' progress solely to the draft record since 2012. Obviously the Packers have a QB who basically takes turns with Tom Brady being the best in the league and that (as one example of the fact that there's much more to this equation) has a huge impact on how successful their team is.

Secondly, it's obvious that the Vikings' regression to 7-6 is a function of injuries more than anything. When you lose your starting QB, your starting RB's, your starting LT, your backup LT, your starting RG, and your starting RT for all or most of the season, it tends to have a negative effect on your offense. I'm not saying they would be world beaters if they had those guys back, but I would bet money that they would have won a few of these games that they ended up losing by 2, 3, or 6 points.

Lastly, I don't know how you're quantifying "increase." The Packers went 10-6 last year and would need to win out just to match that record. Their defense has been abysmal for large stretches of the season, and their offense has had bouts of complete anemia. Clearly they're hot at the moment, but I struggle to see how they've "increased." And this is especially true if you consider that many of their problems (e.g. pass defense) are a direct result of the failure of draft picks from this stretch we're discussing (i.e. Randall, Rollins, Hyde, etc).

The Bears, meanwhile, went 6-10 last season and will have to win out just to match that record. So I have the same question when it comes to how they've "increased."

The only team that has clearly taken a step forward record wise is Detroit, who went 7-9 last year and is currently 9-4. To their credit, Stafford is playing out of his mind and that has really helped them along. Furthermore, their 9 wins have come by margins of 4, 1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 3, 15, and 3 points. So on average, they win by 5. A win is a win, of course, but historically having a really good or really bad record in one score games is a stat that tends to regress because it's largely a function of luck. In other words, it hasn't proven to be a good indicator of how good a team actually is. Finally, we're just talking about how drafts have gone recently. The Lions' success this season hasn't really been heavily due to recent drafts. Slay, Riddick, and Ebron have had big impacts but a lot of the biggest difference makers (e.g. Stafford, Tate, Jones, etc) came far earlier or through FA.

As objective as I can be, I see the most recent draft hauls in this division and think the Vikings have done the best job. So when you couple that with some impactful FA signings like Linval Joseph, and hiring a great head coach, and finding a QB last minute to prevent a completely lost season, I don't see any reason why Vikings fans should want to ditch Spielman.

[S197]

If we keep getting the better drafts how come we always suck and never improve. makes no sense.

Vikings = good draft Results= regression
Packers = ok draft results= minor increase
lions= ok draft results= major increase
Bears= ok draft results = minor increase

maybe we are seeing this with purple sunglasses

We won the NFC North last year and were a shanked kick away from a playoff win...

[PurpleKoolaid]

We won the NFC North last year and were a shanked kick away from a playoff win...

I agree, and think we should have shown the most regression.
Lion will show a surt, then lose. And start out talk year wear and then boom. We just stick around 7-9 wins, always. Makes make want to poke a stick in my eye.

[Jordysghost]

Lastly, I don't know how you're quantifying "increase." The Packers went 10-6 last year and would need to win out just to match that record. Their defense has been abysmal for large stretches of the season, and their offense has had bouts of complete anemia. Clearly they're hot at the moment, but I struggle to see how they've "increased." And this is especially true if you consider that many of their problems (e.g. pass defense) are a direct result of the failure of draft picks from this stretch we're discussing (i.e. Randall, Rollins, Hyde, etc).

This is the most misguided post ive seen in a while, did you even bother fact checking any of this?

The Packers D was among the top in the league, until injuries hit and our 5th DB was STARTING at the number 1 corner.

Randall, Rollins and Hyde (Hybrid corner/safety) have all been good picks, the first two would likely be number 1 corners on the Vikings. By the numbers, they are both better then Rhodes.

Furthermore, the Packers have had a top 5 secondary two of the past 3 seasons, top 10 in all of the past 3 seasons.

[Jordysghost]

maybe we are seeing this with purple sunglasses

Probably, but that is ok, every fanbase is far more aware and familiar with the success and circumstances of their own draft picks then other teams.

[Mothman]

A few thoughts on that...

I don't think you can attribute the teams' progress solely to the draft record since 2012. Obviously the Packers have a QB who basically takes turns with Tom Brady being the best in the league and that (as one example of the fact that there's much more to this equation) has a huge impact on how successful their team is.

Secondly, it's obvious that the Vikings' regression to 7-6 is a function of injuries more than anything. When you lose your starting QB, your starting RB's, your starting LT, your backup LT, your starting RG, and your starting RT for all or most of the season, it tends to have a negative effect on your offense. I'm not saying they would be world beaters if they had those guys back, but I would bet money that they would have won a few of these games that they ended up losing by 2, 3, or 6 points.

Lastly, I don't know how you're quantifying "increase." The Packers went 10-6 last year and would need to win out just to match that record. Their defense has been abysmal for large stretches of the season, and their offense has had bouts of complete anemia. Clearly they're hot at the moment, but I struggle to see how they've "increased." And this is especially true if you consider that many of their problems (e.g. pass defense) are a direct result of the failure of draft picks from this stretch we're discussing (i.e. Randall, Rollins, Hyde, etc).

The Bears, meanwhile, went 6-10 last season and will have to win out just to match that record. So I have the same question when it comes to how they've "increased."

The only team that has clearly taken a step forward record wise is Detroit, who went 7-9 last year and is currently 9-4. To their credit, Stafford is playing out of his mind and that has really helped them along. Furthermore, their 9 wins have come by margins of 4, 1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 3, 15, and 3 points. So on average, they win by 5. A win is a win, of course, but historically having a really good or really bad record in one score games is a stat that tends to regress because it's largely a function of luck. In other words, it hasn't proven to be a good indicator of how good a team actually is. Finally, we're just talking about how drafts have gone recently. The Lions' success this season hasn't really been heavily due to recent drafts. Slay, Riddick, and Ebron have had big impacts but a lot of the biggest difference makers (e.g. Stafford, Tate, Jones, etc) came far earlier or through FA.

As objective as I can be, I see the most recent draft hauls in this division and think the Vikings have done the best job. So when you couple that with some impactful FA signings like Linval Joseph, and hiring a great head coach, and finding a QB last minute to prevent a completely lost season, I don't see any reason why Vikings fans should want to ditch Spielman.

Because many of us desperately want to see the team win a Super Bowl. Spielman makes too many mistakes, too many errors in judgment. He gambles and loses too often. He doesn't seem to have a good handle on the bigger picture of team-building. His choices repeatedly lead the team into seasons like this one and at this point, that should be obvious.

I wish people would stop referring to Zimmer as a "great" coach too. Let's let him prove that. If it's true, he will prove it over time but I don't think he's proven it yet. He's a great defensive coach but the offense has bottomed out on his watch.

[losperros]

Because many of us desperately want to see the team win a Super Bowl. Spielman makes too many mistakes, too many errors in judgment. He gambles and loses too often. He doesn't seem to have a good handle on the bigger picture of team-building. His choices repeatedly lead the team into seasons like this one and at this point, that should be obvious.

Well, if Spielman does stick around, he badly needs to learn from his mistakes. Most of the needs on the team are profoundly obvious. One would think strengthening every unit on the entire team as much as possible would be the first rule of order. Yet that hasn't been done for the offensive line. What, winning the battle in the trenches isn't important anymore? A NFL team GM should know better (and so should a NFL head coach).

I wish people would stop referring to Zimmer as a "great" coach too. Let's let him prove that. If it's true, he will prove it over time but I don't think he's proven it yet. He's a great defensive coach but the offense has bottomed out on his watch.

That's how I feel too, Jim. It's not fashionable to say it but Zimmer hasn't been great. Not yet. He certainly is a brilliant defensive coach but the offensive coaching has gaps, in my view.

[Mothman]

Well, if Spielman does stick around, he badly needs to learn from his mistakes. Most of the needs on the team are profoundly obvious. One would think strengthening every unit on the entire team as much as possible would be the first rule of order. Yet that hasn't been done for the offensive line. What, winning the battle in the trenches isn't important anymore? A NFL team GM should know better (and so should a NFL head coach).

Absolutely. It's fundamental.

That's how I feel too, Jim. It's not fashionable to say it but Zimmer hasn't been great. Not yet. He certainly is a brilliant defensive coach but the offensive coaching has gaps, in my view.

Indeed and that's been apparent for a long time now.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This is just more of a general comment but are you really going to sit there and tell me we wouldnt be somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4 if those injuries didnt hit?? Not really sure if thats entirely Spielmans fault. We went 11-5 last year and lost next to nobody in the offseason. This team didnt "regress". This team got killed by injuries. The defense is even better than last year and an offense that wasnt great got murdered by injuries so I'm not sure what anyone else would expect on that side of the ball.

It's not like anyone on this team truly regressed. I guess you could say Fusco?? Clemmings was always bad. Nobody on the defense took a step back really. So what regressed really?? Pull those 4 positions off of any offense in the NFL and tell me what happens. We have a SB caliber defense. Arguably the best in the NFL right now.

[autobon7]

This is just more of a general comment but are you really going to sit there and tell me we wouldnt be somewhere between 10-6 and 12-4 if those injuries didnt hit?? Not really sure if thats entirely Spielmans fault. We went 11-5 last year and lost next to nobody in the offseason. This team didnt "regress". This team got killed by injuries. The defense is even better than last year and an offense that wasnt great got murdered by injuries so I'm not sure what anyone else would expect on that side of the ball.

It's not like anyone on this team truly regressed. I guess you could say Fusco?? Clemmings was always bad. Nobody on the defense took a step back really. So what regressed really?? Pull those 4 positions off of any offense in the NFL and tell me what happens. We have a SB caliber defense. Arguably the best in the NFL right now.

I agree with your post except I would maybe point to Barr (I know he is defense but still) as regressing. I have felt that way after nearly every game and then seen this on espn.com

What happened to Anthony Barr?



■Share
■Tweet
■@Email

After a stellar sophomore campaign, Barr has gone missing in Year 3, grading as one of Pro Football Focus' worst 4-3 OLBs. He landed on John Clayton's list of underwhelming performers. Disappointing players (Insider)

[PurpleKoolaid]

A good trader could get a good Olineman or good DB for Barr. Barr still may be a star but is starting and slow and some team dying for Olinemen, would jump at Barr, Cole for example. Its not written in stone where he has to play. I would hate to be the one to pull the trigger on this one but I would.