Vikings can finish last in the NFC North and be happy

[Texas Vike]

Eloquent enough?

I'm not satisfied with last place either, but I'm afraid it's going to be a long year.

As a side note, sorry to have made an "impression" (w/o the MN Nice I think you mean I came off as a jerk/know-it-all). Judging by your response, I think my light tone was lost in the typing. I was simply trying to clarify my meaning w/ the term eloquence. I write for a living, so I'm precise and particular w/ words... which may come off as stuffy w/ some. No offense intended, Vikings brothers!

[VikingLord]

They just converted to a very traditional power structure by making Spielman the "actual" GM. He has the power and accountability of most GMs. He may not have hiring or firing power over the HC but you can bet he has an influential voice in that regard. We don't know if he wanted Frazier to be HC or not but for all we know he would have hired Frazier anyway if he'd had the authority. After all, Frazier was a qualified candidate who knew the roster and showed a steady hand after taking over for Childress in 2010. It looks like they are already getting on with the business of getting back to the top and using a proven structure to do it. I have no idea if they'll be successful or not but at this point, all we or the Wilfs can do is wait and see what happens... and hope for the best.

Jim

I'd argue that Spielman is not an actual GM because he doesn't have complete power over who is coaching. We don't really know whether he would choose Frazier because he didn't hire Frazier and the Wilfs expressly stated they were retaining Frazier as head coach. Not exactly the sort of GM job most classic GM's would even bother interviewing for. "GM Wanted - you cannot hire or fire the head coach, but still will be saddled with responsibility for the outcome of the season. Apply Within"

I'd also argue that just because the Wilfs switched from interviewing and hiring one guy for the head coaching job to interviewing and hiring one guy for the psuedo-GM job is not necessarily an improvement, at least in terms of the likely result. They are still demonstrating their laser-focus on an outcome to the exclusion of other possibilities. That doesn't mean Spielman will fail, and I hope he doesn't, but was anyone else even seriously considered before that decision was made? How can one increase the changes of getting the best result when no alternatives are considered?

All that aside, I agree that at least structurally, the Vikings are in a better position right now than at any time since the Wilfs bought the team. It just still may not be enough to vault them back into real competitiveness.

[VikingLord]

I don't think the Bear, Packers and Lions all finish 11-5. I expect the Packers to win less than 10. But that's just me.

If Rodgers misses any substantial amount of time I agree. That team is infinitely better with him on the field considering their backups and lack of a running game.

If he doesn't miss any time, I can't see more than a 3 game drop off from last season's finish. To go from 15 wins to 9 or fewer wins given no major roster turnover at key positions would either indicate the rest of the league got a lot better or the Packers benefited from amazing luck last year.

[Mothman]

I'd argue that Spielman is not an actual GM because he doesn't have complete power over who is coaching. We don't really know whether he would choose Frazier because he didn't hire Frazier and the Wilfs expressly stated they were retaining Frazier as head coach. Not exactly the sort of GM job most classic GM's would even bother interviewing for. "GM Wanted - you cannot hire or fire the head coach, but still will be saddled with responsibility for the outcome of the season. Apply Within"

If he has all the other powers/responsibilities of a GM, isn't it nitpicking to suggest he isn't an "actual GM" because he doesn't have exclusive authority to hire and fire coaches? He would almost certainly have a strong influence on a decision like that. More than one Vikings reporter has said as much and it makes sense so in terms of the statement you made earlier about it being time for the Wilfs to just "provide capital support to an actual GM who has all the powers (and accountability) of an actual GM, let that GM choose his coaches, and get on with the business of getting back to the top"... the Vikes may basically be there. If they decide to replace Frazier and Spielman is still in his current position, I will be stunned if he doesn't play a major role in the hiring process.

I'd also argue that just because the Wilfs switched from interviewing and hiring one guy for the head coaching job to interviewing and hiring one guy for the psuedo-GM job is not necessarily an improvement, at least in terms of the likely result. They are still demonstrating their laser-focus on an outcome to the exclusion of other possibilities. That doesn't mean Spielman will fail, and I hope he doesn't, but was anyone else even seriously considered before that decision was made? How can one increase the changes of getting the best result when no alternatives are considered?

Maybe alternatives were considered. We don't really know. Even if they weren't, I think there's a difference between the promotion of someone within the organization and hiring the first coach interviewed when essentially rebooting the management of the team. The Wilfs did the latter when they hired Childress. However, promoting from within isn't unusual at all, in the NFL or in business. It's a common practice that can offer distinct advantages. It doesn't carry an inherent risk of failure any more than hiring someone from outside of an organization. It offers no guarantee of success either but that's the nature of the biz...

All that aside, I agree that at least structurally, the Vikings are in a better position right now than at any time since the Wilfs bought the team. It just still may not be enough to vault them back into real competitiveness.

At this point, I think that will probably be due to the people the Wilfs have placed in key positions rather than the management structure itself.

[VikingLord]

If he has all the other powers/responsibilities of a GM, isn't it nitpicking to suggest he isn't an "actual GM" because he doesn't have exclusive authority to hire and fire coaches? He would almost certainly have a strong influence on a decision like that. More than one Vikings reporter has said as much and it makes sense so in terms of the statement you made earlier about it being time for the Wilfs to just "provide capital support to an actual GM who has all the powers (and accountability) of an actual GM, let that GM choose his coaches, and get on with the business of getting back to the top"... the Vikes may basically be there. If they decide to replace Frazier and Spielman is still in his current position, I will be stunned if he doesn't play a major role in the hiring process.

I don't think its nitpicking at all. What GM would take a job where the owners choose who the coach is going to be? Having a major role isn't the same as having the power. I think you're rationalizing a structure that still doesn't pass the smell test.

Maybe alternatives were considered. We don't really know. Even if they weren't, I think there's a difference between the promotion of someone within the organization and hiring the first coach interviewed when essentially rebooting the management of the team. The Wilfs did the latter when they hired Childress. However, promoting from within isn't unusual at all, in the NFL or in business. It's a common practice that can offer distinct advantages. It doesn't carry an inherent risk of failure any more than hiring someone from outside of an organization. It offers no guarantee of success either but that's the nature of the biz...

I'm not criticizing the decision to hire Spielman per se - I'm criticizing what I perceive to be the lack of consideration of alternatives before the choice was made. Maybe Spielman would have been the choice even if alternatives were considered, but there is no evidence to suggest the Wilfs considered anyone else, and given their history with head coaches, I doubt they did.

At this point, I think that will probably be due to the people the Wilfs have placed in key positions rather than the management structure itself.

Are you sure about that? If the owners continue to meddle directly in how the team is run, don't you think that can undermine even the best people? If Spielman believes the Vikings need to replace Frazier at the end of this season and the Wilfs say no because they like Frazier, I think that's a direct indictment of the current structure rather than the people, and it continues to blur the lines of accountability within the organization. Is it Spielman's fault then if they continue to struggle in 2013 if that is the case?

I just think the Wilfs have failed miserably when it comes to creating a sound management structure for the team, and until that is *fully* rectified I think the odds are better than not that the Vikings will continue to struggle to regain a solid footing. Spielman has to have the power to make every call without interference. If the Wilfs don't allow him to do that, he's not really a GM IMHO.

[Mothman]

I don't think its nitpicking at all. What GM would take a job where the owners choose who the coach is going to be?

It happens. If I'm not mistaken, the last two Bears GMs inherited coaches and I'm sure there are other examples. Let's not kid ourselves, I doubt there are many GMs in the league with complete autonomy when it comes to hiring and firing head coaches. Most probably need at least a "stamp" of approval from ownership (and most owners probably give it willingly because they trust the GMs they've hired). That may be all the Wilfs are really saying when they say the power to hire and fire head coaches remains with them. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll be conducting the interviews and making the choice independently.

Having a major role isn't the same as having the power. I think you're rationalizing a structure that still doesn't pass the smell test.

No, I'm just talking about the structure as a whole. What difference does it make in terms of overall team operations if Spielman has sole hiring and firing power over the head coach? The head coach can still be fired. He's still accountable and if Spielman has a significant voice in who gets hired or fired, if he's an important part of that process and they hire the coach he wants, the net result is the same as if he hired someone on his own. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that he's doing everything else a GM does. The only way I can see that hiring and firing power mattering is if a GM gets saddled with a coach he doesn't want. There's nothing to indicate that's the case now or that it would happen if they chose to replace Frazier. We don't know the internal dynamics of this power structure and we can't assume we do.

Edward, I apologize if I seem argumentative about this. I'm just tired of worrying about might happen with the Vikes. There's enough to worry about already without adding hypothetical problems to the list. I'd rather hope for the best at this time of year. With luck, at the end of the season we can be excited about the steps the Vikings have taken forward instead of worrying about who is getting fired and who makes the call.

[J. Kapp 11]

I'm not satisfied with last place either, but I'm afraid it's going to be a long year.

As a side note, sorry to have made an "impression" (w/o the MN Nice I think you mean I came off as a jerk/know-it-all). Judging by your response, I think my light tone was lost in the typing. I was simply trying to clarify my meaning w/ the term eloquence. I write for a living, so I'm precise and particular w/ words... which may come off as stuffy w/ some. No offense intended, Vikings brothers!

No problem. I probably jumped the gun.

Welcome to the board!

P.S. I write for a living, too.