Eli wrote:You may be right... I probably can't make you see it.
Because a GM should be able to see the situation coming and not put the team in a position to make a difficult decision like that, with very little benefit from doing so. It's not as simple as just saying "gimme a bunch of guys and I'll pick three". You need to weigh the risks and the potential costs.
I AM weighing the potential risks and costs and of course I realize it's not as simple as "gimme a bunch of guys and I'll pick three".
Say the Vikings sign Josh McCown before the draft. So they have McCown and Ponder signed. Do they draft two QBs in that scenario? I say no way. That would be dumb, because the second one, no matter how much you like him, is unlikely to bump Ponder off the roster. So the chances are good that he'll be waived in the hopes of floating him to the practice squad. Where he's still vulnerable. That's not so bad if he turns out to be a bum. But if you made a great (or lucky) 7th round pick, then you've put yourself in the position of either releasing the guy who is guaranteed $3M and is your best backup option, or else exposing your great/lucky late round pick. That just isn't a smart move, no matter how good it is to have a house full of QBs.
It's obvious to me that we have a very fundamental disagreement here about how a GM should approach his job.
First, while weighing the potential risks and costs a GM should also be weighing the potential
benefits, both short and long term. You seem almost exclusively focused on the downside of this scenario, the risks and costs.
Second, the only reason to draft two QBs in a single draft is if you feel the second one has enough talent to reward the pick. Consequently, the idea that there's "very little benefit" to be derived from the move doesn't hold up, because if there's very little benefit to drafting the second QB, there's no reason to make that pick in the first place. If there IS a potentially significant benefit to drafting him, then doing so even with McCown (or another veteran stopgap) and Ponder under contract isn't "dumb".
Spielman should be asking if he and the coaching staff see Ponder playing a significant role in the Vikings future beyond the 2014 season, as either a backup or a starter. If so, and if they see him as a backup, they also have to determine if that's an ongoing role Ponder would want and accept or if the only way to keep him beyond this season would be to give him a chance to earn the starting job. If they think 2014 is likely his last year in Minnesota, I think he becomes expendable.
Further questions to consider: What are the stakes? Is a Super Bowl win at stake this season? If so, is keeping Ponder going to be
the difference between winning and losing that Super Bowl? If so, keep him as "your best backup option" and either don't draft that late round QB or do so with a willingness to accept that he may be lost if put on the practice squad.
If Ponder isn't going to be the difference between winning and losing a Super Bowl in 2014 (and I doubt anyone believes he is) and/or if they don't see him as a part of their QB depth chart beyond 2014, the risk of losing him becomes acceptable when weighed against the potential reward of developing a good, young QB in his stead. The money lost if they cut him isn't a huge price to pay for the choice, especially if the young late-round pick works out, because he's not going to cost much in NFL terms for his first 3 seasons.
The stakes just aren't high enough for this to be a big concern. In the end, it's simply about assessing talent, weighing options, creating competition and taking a big picture view of the roster that goes beyond the 2014 season. Nobody would be put an unforgivably awkward situation. Coaches have to make difficult decisions about which players to keep or cut every year. Adding one more to choice to the mix is something I'm sure they could handle.
