Vikings Message Board.Com

mansquatch wrote:I find these columns really funny on one hand and really pathetic on the other. Bill Polian got fired from Indy after the 2011 campaign when Manning was out and the Colts went 2-14. Some GM when your team revolves around one guy and total garbage without him. That is like 13 years of 1st round picks and 2nd round picks and it all added up to that performance without that one guy? But, I digress… The key point is that Souhan is right about the QB being the lynch pin, but again, he refuses to ask the ultimate question: Did Polian or Thompson know that Manning or Rogers would be what they are today or were they lucky? The results of the NFL teams drafting QBs would argue for the latter. So to me this whole franchise QB thing is a really bad way to look at a GM. You are basically saying it is better to be lucky than good and if the guy is unlucky on his QB pick you can him.

On to Spielman:

I’m not sure I’d say the Kalil pick is nearly as much a bust as Ponder. Kalil is no doubt having his worst year as a pro, but, unlike Ponder, Kalil has shown consistent performance in the past. So what is the cause of Kalil’s regression? Is it the league adjusting to him and now he is going through his re-adjustment phase? Is it injury? Is it maybe both? My guess is it is both. Regardless, the talent and ability is there. Now, I will say that while it would be easy to blame the coaches here, I think it is a mutual issue. Part of “the talent” is the mental fortitude to get through the rough patches and compete in the NFL.

This brings us to what is arguably the other big bust in Spielman’s career: CP84. Again, the I’d say we have at least 2 more seasons before we know for sure since CP was raw coming out of college and he plays WR. However, there is a real reason to be skeptical of this guy’s mental capacity. To me that is a failing of the GM if he doesn’t turn the corner just as much as it is the coaching staff.

If Polians Colts team revolved around one guy, the Colts wouldn't have won the SB with Peyton's terrible 06 postseason performance.

I think a better way to show my view on this is to deconstruct the argument. Assume two premises:

1.) Finding the next good to great QB is as much luck as it is anything else, maybe more so
2.) Good to great QB play covers up a lot of short comings on a roster
Conclusion: The play at QB is not a meaningful way to assess GM performance

I know people will jump and say “but it is the most important position on the field” Exactly right. But, if the GM has no measureable way to produce positive results at the position, then how do you assess whether or not he did a good job? Again, it comes down to luck. Not measurable IMO.

This is why I’m not a fan of Polian. If he were a competent GM they never would have been in a position to draft Luck. Thompson is a bit better. Rogers went down and they still played .500 ball.

The other side of this discussion is hit rate. I’ve hammered this drum before as well. It is easy to get mad at a GM because picks do not pan out, but it is the rate of failure that is the real measuring stick. The issue is to answer the question of what is a “normal” hit rate? Without some kind of benchmark we really cannot say a guy is good or bad, quite simply, how do we know?

I personally like Spielman. He is a savvy deal maker and he is aggressive in trying to get young talent for the roster. I think he is way ahead of the curve post the rookie contract change with his day 1 draft strategy. Obviously we’ve yet to see this turn our team into a contender, but I’m willing to accept that this will never change until we get competent play at QB.

mansquatch wrote:I think a better way to show my view on this is to deconstruct the argument. Assume two premises:

1.) Finding the next good to great QB is as much luck as it is anything else, maybe more so
2.) Good to great QB play covers up a lot of short comings on a roster
Conclusion: The play at QB is not a meaningful way to assess GM performance

I know people will jump and say “but it is the most important position on the field” Exactly right. But, if the GM has no measureable way to produce positive results at the position, then how do you assess whether or not he did a good job? Again, it comes down to luck. Not measurable IMO.

This is why I’m not a fan of Polian. If he were a competent GM they never would have been in a position to draft Luck.

The idea that Polian wasn't a competent GM is utterly ludicrous. He took over a Buffalo team that had suffered back-to-back 2-14 seasons and built a team that dominated the AFC and went to 4 straight Super Bowls. He was tasked with trying to build an immediate contender with the expansion Panthers and he built a team that reached the conference championship in it's second season of existence. He joined the Colts in 1997 and they had 11 seasons with 10+ wins over the next 15 years and went to two Super Bowls. An incompetent GM could never, ever have put together a resumé like Polian's.

I really wish people would actually a look little more deeply into what happened to the Colts in 2011 instead of continually falling back into this "without Manning, they were garbage" mentality. They were devastated by injuries that season. Admittedly, Manning was a huge loss and the Colts were ill-prepared to lose him, with a wholly inadequate backup QB waiting in the wings. That was poor management but the implied idea that Manning simply carried the Colts to those 11 highly successful seasons in 15 years on his own and without him, they were just a 2 win team waiting to happen doesn't hold up under scrutiny (at least not for me). Those Colts teams had talent all over the place, especially on offense. That's one of the reasons Manning was so successful. By 2011, they weren't the team they were at their peak under Dungy and were more vulnerable but even then, there was more than Manning's injury at work that season. It also leads me to this point...

I disagree that finding the next good to great QB is as much luck as it is anything else. Scouting and development play a big role and a team's ability to put a QB in position to succeed plays a big part too. The Colts built a good o-line to protect Manning, gave him great weapons and a terrific offensive coach. They put quality around him and created a stable situation in which he could thrive. All of those factors contributed to his success and without them, his story might look quite different. Rogers, your other example, was put in similarly beneficial circumstances.

Luck plays a role in finding a good-to-great QB but reducing it to nothing more than luck is an oversimplification.

The other side of this discussion is hit rate. I’ve hammered this drum before as well. It is easy to get mad at a GM because picks do not pan out, but it is the rate of failure that is the real measuring stick. The issue is to answer the question of what is a “normal” hit rate? Without some kind of benchmark we really cannot say a guy is good or bad, quite simply, how do we know?

Well, once a GM has put in enough time, the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.

Jim I will spot you that one to a point on Polian, BUT...

I could apply many of your critcisms of the Vikings roster management over the years to the 2011 Colts and reach the same conclusion I reached. In particular you've been very hard on the Purple about the QB situation, especially having "the next guy" on the roster, as well as having sufficient depth that should a guy go down, the next guy isn't total garbage. In the latter part of his tenure in Indy Polian failed in these regards. Polian may have been successful in 90s and into the 2000s with the Colts, but as the game evolved his early success was not repeated in latter years, ergo he was riding the wave of aging verterans and not finding enough new talent.

Also, I do not have the time to dig that far back.

Still, this loses the primary point which is that finding a QB is luck. I really have to disagree with you on your take that scouting matters on this one. Manning was a consensus #1 pick. Taking him was easy. Scouting would be a factor if they took someone else. (Like the Texans taking Williams over Bush, which was the right move) Likewise with Luck. You'd be stupid not to take him #1... unless you know something. Those guys are easy. Brady was a 6th round pick. Needle in the haystack. Same with Russel Wilson. All 32 teams passed on him twice. Was that scouting? I doubt it. Look at RGIII. Heavily scouted. Consensus #2 Talent. Train Wreck. The QB bust list doesn't need elaboration we all know it.

Rogers was the consensus #1/#2 QB in his draft. Other teams didn't value him over other talent. Finally he fell into GB's lap. Bad scouting? Maybe. Even GB didn't know he'd be what he is today. Cam Newton is even more athletic that Rogers, but he isn't Rogers. I'd argue that Kaepernick is at least as Athletic if not more so than Rogers. Not Rogers. What is the difference? That question is rhetorical. There isn't an answer. If there were Rogers would not be playing for GB and we would not see all these College QBs become draft busts.

chicagopurple wrote:its NOT too early for Kalil, it is insanely early for CP.
Its also way early to judge Zim.....
The real painful failures are TJax and Ponder....If Teddy is the third fail, Spielman should be gone...I pray its not so.

While I agree that if Teddy fails, it will likely and should cost Spielman his job, I just wanted to point out that Spielman was not a part of the Vikings organization when TJack was drafted

saint33 wrote: While I agree that if Teddy fails, it will likely and should cost Spielman his job, I just wanted to point out that Spielman was not a part of the Vikings organization when TJack was drafted

Why on earth would/should it cost him his job??? Most all Viking fans were clamouring for him to get drafted.

Purple bruise wrote: Why on earth would/should it cost him his job??? Most all Viking fans were clamouring for him to get drafted.

because another failure at the QB position likely means another 2-3 more years wasted treading water. Fair or unfair, ultimately a GM's job is going to come down to whether or not he can find a franchise QB, since that seems to be the one consistent on teams that continually compete for a playoff spot/superbowl. Spielman's had two shots at drafting QBs in the first round, if neither works out, then he's going to take the heat for it.

because another failure at the QB position likely means another 2-3 more years wasted treading water. Fair or unfair, ultimately a GM's job is going to come down to whether or not he can find a franchise QB, since that seems to be the one consistent on teams that continually compete for a playoff spot/superbowl. Spielman's had two shots at drafting QBs in the first round, if neither works out, then he's going to take the heat for it.[/quote]

You make a good point but with all of the other "hits" that he made during his tenure, to me anyway, trumps Ponder and TB (if he fails), by a ton and I think that the Wilfs IMO feel the same way.

Anyone else remember being super excited about TJack and his athletic ability? I do. Kept reading that he was "raw" but had amazing strength and dexterity.

mansquatch wrote:Jim I will spot you that one to a point on Polian, BUT...

I could apply many of your critcisms of the Vikings roster management over the years to the 2011 Colts and reach the same conclusion I reached. In particular you've been very hard on the Purple about the QB situation, especially having "the next guy" on the roster, as well as having sufficient depth that should a guy go down, the next guy isn't total garbage. In the latter part of his tenure in Indy Polian failed in these regards.

I said in my post that having a wholly inadequate backup QB waiting in the wings behind Manning was poor management. However, a mistake doesn't equal incompetence.

Polian may have been successful in 90s and into the 2000s with the Colts, but as the game evolved his early success was not repeated in latter years, ergo he was riding the wave of aging verterans and not finding enough new talent.

... or he hadn't yet made the transition from aging veterans to younger talent. Since the Colts were in the Super Bowl in 2010 (their second in appearance in 4 years after winning it in 2006) and Polian retired after 2011, I find it pretty hard to agree that his early success was not repeated in latter years. Polian had one season with less than 10 wins in his last decades as a GM (his last season). Heck, he only had 3 seasons in that decade with less than 12 wins!

Still, this loses the primary point which is that finding a QB is luck. I really have to disagree with you on your take that scouting matters on this one. Manning was a consensus #1 pick. Taking him was easy.

... and that had nothing to do with scouting?

Scouting would be a factor if they took someone else.

There was someone else available to take and some experts thought Leaf should have been the #1 pick in that draft. Scouting suggested to some teams he would be a problematic choice and almost certainly had something to do with the Colts choosing Manning over Leaf as their pick. Besides, Manning's not the only example we can choose. I'm not suggesting scouts are always right or that scouting is the sole factor in finding a successful QB but it certainly plays a role. if it didn't teams would just pull QB names out of a hat and hope they got lucky. they research these players and that research influences their decisions. It's a factor.

Cam Newton is even more athletic that Rogers, but he isn't Rogers. I'd argue that Kaepernick is at least as Athletic if not more so than Rogers. Not Rogers. What is the difference? That question is rhetorical. There isn't an answer.

Of course there's an answer. There are a bunch of them: he plays smarter. He's more accurate. He's further along in his development. He was placed in a beneficial situation from day one.

If there were Rogers would not be playing for GB and we would not see all these College QBs become draft busts

We see them because it's an inexact "science", a process involving human beings and human beings make mistakes. Human beings are also somewhat unpredictable which is why luck is a factor. These players participate in a team sport and that's a huge factor too. The team around a QB has as much to do with his success as he does himself.

720pete wrote:Anyone else remember being super excited about TJack and his athletic ability? I do. Kept reading that he was "raw" but had amazing strength and dexterity.

Sorry but what is your point

Mothman wrote:However, when Patterson was drafted, the Vikings still had a starting QB they were trying to develop into a better passer and more effective QB. Adding more talent around him made sense but did adding an extremely raw talent? Was that the best way to help a young QB or would it have made much more sense to draft a more refined receiver, someone who could have stepped in with a more established skill set and provided immediate help, from game one? I'm not sure but I lean toward the latter answer, even though I like Patterson. Ponder proved to be a bust but now the Vikes are trying to develop another young QB and while I have nothing against Patterson, it's obvious Teddy could use someone like Allen or Hopkins, two receivers available in the same draft who had the skills to provide more immediate help.

It's something to think about anyway. After all, being a GM isn't just about assembling a talented team for a coach, it's about building a team whose parts sufficiently complement one another so that the whole is greater than the sum.

Does that make sense?

That's an interesting question.

Honestly, I have to wonder if it even entered the Vikings' thinking. I think they believed Ponder was on track entering his third season. He had a good start to 2012, and even though he had a horrific midseason, he did bounce back to play pretty well at the end. So I'm guessing they thought Ponder was ready to take the next step and become the reliable franchise QB they drafted him to be. They likely figured Cordarrelle Patterson would develop at his own rate exclusive of Ponder. They had Greg Jennings, they had Rudolph, they had Simpson, and they had Jarius Wright, who finished strong in 2012. Patterson was a luxury in their minds. At least that's my guess.

Heck, Jim, you may be smarter than the Vikings' brass.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:That's an interesting question.

Honestly, I have to wonder if it even entered the Vikings' thinking. I think they believed Ponder was on track entering his third season. He had a good start to 2012, and even though he had a horrific midseason, he did bounce back to play pretty well at the end. So I'm guessing they thought Ponder was ready to take the next step and become the reliable franchise QB they drafted him to be. They likely figured Cordarrelle Patterson would develop at his own rate exclusive of Ponder. They had Greg Jennings, they had Rudolph, they had Simpson, and they had Jarius Wright, who finished strong in 2012. Patterson was a luxury in their minds. At least that's my guess.

Heck, Jim, you may be smarter than the Vikings' brass.

Thanks but somehow, I doubt it.

For the most part, we are maybe two players away from a defense that can carry this team, and you have to give spielman credit for that. But I am not going pretend that his draft picks and fa acquisition on offense, have been anything but failures. The guy is so illiterate when it comes to qbs that his evaluation of veteran qbs has been a train wreck. Freeman and mcnabb? continuing to resign MBT at least once a season?

Kalil is 100% on Spielman. Mickinnie had at least 5 weeks to diet, and he would have been in perfect shape to protect mcnabb, or ponder, and we would have never been in position to grab any of the 2012 busts.

joe h wrote:Kalil is 100% on Spielman. Mickinnie had at least 5 weeks to diet, and he would have been in perfect shape to protect mcnabb, or ponder, and we would have never been in position to grab any of the 2012 busts.

McKinnie isn't a player we should be upset about losing. He was lazy and contributed heavily to almost getting Favre killed. I

t's easy to say Spielman made the wrong choice in hindsight, but after 2012 we thought we had a younger tackle who was already better. Sonetimes, things like that happen. Regardless, the results would be the same if we still had McKinnie.