Vikings Message Board.Com

I don't know that it makes sense to call this a single approach as I think we're talking about two very different things.

There is the team building philosophy, which is what Spielman is now clearly in charge of, and that is how to go about obtaining and retaining the team's talent base.

Then there is the game-day philosophy, or how to go about using that talent on Sundays to try to win games. This is what Frazier is now solely focused on.

The two are distinct. A true GM who gets to hire and fire a head coach in theory has the power to determine game-day approach as well as the team-building approach when he hires a coach, but in this case it appears Spielman doesn't have that sole say. So in the case of the Vikings I think these two are more distinct than they are for many other NFL teams.

As for whether the approaches can work, I think Spielman's approach is long overdue and has been repeatedly proven to not only keep teams competitive over long periods of time, but also keep them from being forced into desperation moves to either avoid salary cap h$ll or free agent h$ll (or both). Teams that employ this approach, like Pittsburgh, New England, Green Bay, and even the Ravens, just plod along for the most part. They rarely make big splashes in free agency, play the draft like a maestro plays the piano, and are known for having the guts to let vets walk if they are troublemakers or their asking price is too high, or in many cases even swinging nice trades for said vets that net them draft compensation they then turn into gold via superior talent evaluation and development. This is the path of the teams that are perpetually competitive, and Spielman is wise to model it. This approach, provided the components that support it are in place, will work. There is no question.

In regards to Frazier's approach, I think it can work, but as others have mentioned the key is not so much running and stopping the run as it is in finding balance on both sides of the ball. From what I saw last year, the Vikings can compete with Frazier's approach, but they do need to develop more capability as a passing team and get better at defending the pass. I think Frazier recognizes this as well, so I'd expect that to remain a focus and it will develop as Ponder gains experience and the team gets him some receivers who can make plays.

It seems the entire organization has adopted the long-term view, from the Wilfs exercising the option on Frazier's contract instead of extending him after a surprising season, to Frazier's willingness to stick with Ponder last season through an epically poor series of games, to Spielman's willingness to make some unpopular, but necessary, personnel moves, this is truly uncharted territory for us Vikings fans.

Maybe it can. But you start with the QB. And yet Ponder is still here. Maybe they feel the third year is the charm. But they give him no targets. I will truely be pissed if the excuse next is exactly that, and hes still around if he strugles this year. If your rebuilding start with the foundation. Do it right.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Maybe it can. But you start with the QB. And yet Ponder is still here. Maybe they feel the third year is the charm. But they give him no targets. I will truely be pissed if the excuse next is exactly that, and hes still around if he strugles this year. If your rebuilding start with the foundation. Do it right.

They are starting with the QB as the foundation. It just remains to be seen if they made the right choice with that QB.

I wholeheartedly agree that they have to give him the targets to be successful. If they don't, it's much more difficult to evaluate him.

Mothman wrote: They are starting with the QB as the foundation. It just remains to be seen if they made the right choice with that QB.

I wholeheartedly agree that they have to give him the targets to be successful. If they don't, it's much more difficult to evaluate him.

Actually, it might be easier to evaluate the QB if he doesn't have the targets because then he won't have anyone to bail him out of bad decisions or make his numbers look better than they really are. I think Harvin largely did that in the first half of last season for Ponder by repeatedly turning those short swing passes into bigger gains. Take Harvin's YAC ability away and Ponder's first half of the season probably looks a lot more like the last half minus the final four games.

The more I think about this the more convinced I am that the best approach here is to offer Jennings a reasonable contract if they really want him, but nothing crazy or too long term, get to the draft, find two guys in the draft who can develop into great NFL WRs over time, and then make another move for a solid vet in FA after the draft or, should it come to that, swing a trade for a future pick if the situation is truly dire. But I really believe the Vikings stand the best chance of finding the right guy in the draft if they don't color their perception of the position before the draft by spending a big chunk of change on a "big name" FA WR.

Besides, I think Jennings would rather stay with Green Bay. Better QB, more established offense, better overall team and much more likely to compete for a Superbowl than the Vikings. Unless the money is ridiculous I can't see the Vikings doing more than setting the market for Jennings to take back to the Packers.

VikingLord wrote:Actually, it might be easier to evaluate the QB if he doesn't have the targets because then he won't have anyone to bail him out of bad decisions or make his numbers look better than they really are.

That's not easier and the truth is that stats/numbers are never "better than they are". They are exactly what they are.

I think we can probably agree that, simply put, the QB's job is to find open targets and get the ball to them. Sure, his job is actually more complex than that and there are aspects of his game to evaluate that don't involve receivers. He has to make pre- and post-snap reads and good decisions and have good footwork and patience in the pocket and so on but none of that means squat if, after he does everything right, there's nobody open. The single most important aspect of his job is to make the right read and get the ball into the hands of a receiver and it's a lot easier to evaluate his job performance if the receivers do their jobs well. The opposite is also true. It's harder to evaluate a receiver's performance if his QB does a poor job.

I think Harvin largely did that in the first half of last season for Ponder by repeatedly turning those short swing passes into bigger gains. Take Harvin's YAC ability away and Ponder's first half of the season probably looks a lot more like the last half minus the final four games.

Probably... but his stats in those games were impacted by his receiving targets, just like his stats when he was throwing to Harvin were impacted by Harvin. The receiver's ability and performance effects the QB's stats and that's as true for the league's top QBs as it is for Ponder. Ponder threw all of those short passes to Harvin by design and they were intended to take advantage of Harvin's running skills. Getting the ball to Harvin was Ponder's job and he did it. He shouldn't get demerits because the throws were simple.

Jim

The Lynch pin for me on the strategy is player eval and coaching. If you are going to build via the draft, and focus on retaining your own guys, then by default you betting on your team's ability to both hit on draft picsk as well as deveop your late round guys. They've hit well in their first draft, but can this continue?

mansquatch wrote:The Lynch pin for me on the strategy is player eval and coaching. If you are going to build via the draft, and focus on retaining your own guys, then by default you betting on your team's ability to both hit on draft picsk as well as deveop your late round guys. They've hit well in their first draft, but can this continue?

Only time will tell but I definitely think player evaluation and coaching are two of the big three keys. Cap management is the third because if the strategy is to draft, develop and retain their own players, the cap has to be managed well enough to make the "retaining" part possible.

As you said, the Vikes are betting on their ability to identify and develop talent.

Mothman wrote: Only time will tell but I definitely think player evaluation and coaching are two of the big three keys. Cap management is the third because if the strategy is to draft, develop and retain their own players, the cap has to be managed well enough to make the "retaining" part possible.

As you said, the Vikes are betting on their ability to identify and develop talent.

Precisely it, I do worry that this plan of action will result in delayed improvements, especially when considering how long it can take for rookies to develop. Take the current Free Agency period, teams such as Denver and Seattle were both close to achieving their final goal of a championship and in order to hopefully take the next step, they've opted to delve into the crop of available players and make key acquisitions.

I'm all for retaining our own guys and taking the traditional approach of building through the draft but I think a proven vet, particularly at receiver is worth the conceding of a first round pick. At least then, you know the 'bust' prospect is out of the window and immediately said high profile player can enter as a leader, taking the inexperienced crop we currently own under his wing.

And the biggest problem with the 3-5 year time this will take to work (im guessing here) AD will be past his prime, and gone. And thats a sad shame. But I guess most here wont care cause he would prolly be asking too much for a washed up, beat up RB.

Of course it can work.

If we find a good young QB to captain the ship. We don't have that. Can we find it? Maybe. Might be a while though.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:And the biggest problem with the 3-5 year time this will take to work (im guessing here) AD will be past his prime, and gone. And thats a sad shame. But I guess most here wont care cause he would prolly be asking too much for a washed up, beat up RB.

Do you ever have an upbeat thought to express?

They won 10 games last year maybe they aren't that far away from making a run at a title. In other words, it may not take another 3-5 years for them to win a Super Bowl. Hopefully, they are at least trying to get it done while AD is in his prime but that can't be their only consideration. AD might keep going strong for a pretty long time anyway. RBs don't come with an expiration date and some of the greatest played (and excelled) much longer than the average back. Peterson is clearly anything but average.

Mothman wrote: Do you ever have an upbeat thought to express?

They won 10 games last year maybe they aren't that far away from making a run at a title. In other words, it may not take another 3-5 years for them to win a Super Bowl. Hopefully, they are at least trying to get it done while AD is in his prime but that can't be their only consideration. AD might keep going strong for a pretty long time anyway. RBs don't come with an expiration date and some of the greatest played (and excelled) much longer than the average back. Peterson is clearly anything but average.

Haha, not very often. But then, I dont see positive things happening. Last years draft was good, I was happy about that.

I just wish this is the way we went right after Chidlress was fired, but without Fraiser as HC (still as DC) and with Spieman as GM. But hopefully better late then never. Oh, and Im happy with the Cassel signing, even though hes a bit of a turnover machine. The Winfield loss really sucks. Esp. when Load got paid so much. And I think Im the only fan that still loves Moss and PH.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:And the biggest problem with the 3-5 year time this will take to work (im guessing here) AD will be past his prime, and gone. And thats a sad shame. But I guess most here wont care cause he would prolly be asking too much for a washed up, beat up RB.

Too true, we must establish a reliable receiver corps and ensure our game plan is more versatile prior to the day in which we can no longer rely solely on the performance of AD. Our one dimensional approach worries me above all. Obviously Peterson's super human but football's a short lived career, who knows what the future holds?!

PurpleKoolaid wrote:And the biggest problem with the 3-5 year time this will take to work (im guessing here) AD will be past his prime, and gone. And thats a sad shame. But I guess most here wont care cause he would prolly be asking too much for a washed up, beat up RB.

Were you this distraught when Pat Williams wasn't resigned? You reacted/are still reacting like the Vikings made some personal stab at you by releasing Antoine Winfield.

There is no doubt the guy made some spectacular plays for us, many which helped us win games. But so did Randy Moss, and so did Daunte Culpepper, both of which had equally as uncermonious departures from the Vikings.And Kevin Williams is next, dude.

Mothman wrote: Do you ever have an upbeat thought to express?

They won 10 games last year maybe they aren't that far away from making a run at a title. In other words, it may not take another 3-5 years for them to win a Super Bowl. Hopefully, they are at least trying to get it done while AD is in his prime but that can't be their only consideration. AD might keep going strong for a pretty long time anyway. RBs don't come with an expiration date and some of the greatest played (and excelled) much longer than the average back. Peterson is clearly anything but average.

The usual gloom, doom and complain is some people's life style sadly