Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him

[chicagopurple]

Sully was kept on the team and projected to start for a long time. His replacement occurred late in the process and should never have happened that way. Kalil is NOT servicable..he has been a liability. I don't see any way you can say our game-plan for OL has been acceptable for years. AP was a band-aid that allowed some illusion that we were OK since he used to be a miracle RB that could get the job done with NO blocking. Truth is, had Spielman done his job and provided a real OL APs career would have been insanely successful. Instead, AP was given more hurdles to overcome and he did well despite our OL. Its all been a big waste. We have had ONE year where we came close to a sniff of a Super Bowl (thanks to a GB QB on loan-THEY know how to draft and groom QBS), thats it. THAT is not success. And the whole time, the weakest part of our team has been, and continues to be the OL.

[Mothman]

In response to the last two posts:

1) @ PHP: I think our OL was OK in pass pro against the Jaguars, so I'm left to wonder if this is a talent related thing or a coaching issue. You and I have different views on Asiata (though I don't love him, I just think you assign way too much of the deficient run o to him), but I think when AD gets back we'll see similar production. Our OL gets ZERO push. Loadholt was known for his run blocking, which is why AD loved him and lobbied for him to get paid, and his absence hurts us a lot.

2) @squatch: while I think you may be right, there are others, like me, who are kind of in between. I don't think it's time to fire Rick, but he has made some mistakes and I don't see why we can't discuss and critique them here. He put together a questionable line with a philosophy rooted in quantity over quality. It was costly because of the number of guys we had to pay and it rendered a poor performance. Yes, injuries should mitigate the critiques of Spielman a bit. But the fact remains, he put together a second rate starting line and it bit him in the backside. We need to invest in OL--a fact that has been clear for years.

It's been clear for years and it's probably his biggest failing but his mishandling of the QB position is also damning and the two provided a nasty one-two punch this season that, in my opinion, underlines why he's the wrong man for the job. Drafting Treadwell is just an exclamation point.

I understand why some fans feel this topic has become stagnant but it's hard not to focus on it when we are reminded of these problems every time we watch the line play. When we see that struggling line and realize how badly the team needs a good young tackle, we're inevitably drawn to next year's draft to look for hope and then, of course, we're reminded that the Vikings have no first round draft pick because they've already spent it on a QB for the 3rd time in 6 years.

I know I'm covering well-trodden territory. Sorry.

As I said upthread, there's a reason why we end up in two camps about the state of the team so often: they remain mired in mediocrity. They haven't risen above it long enough to firmly establish themselves as one of the league's best teams and make it crystal clear that we can all join the "future is bright" camp and stay there for a while. Instead, the Vikes poke their head up every so often, give us hope and then take another deep dive into the middle of the pack.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Sully was kept on the team and projected to start for a long time. His replacement occurred late in the process and should never have happened that way. Kalil is NOT servicable..he has been a liability. I don't see any way you can say our game-plan for OL has been acceptable for years. AP was a band-aid that allowed some illusion that we were OK since he used to be a miracle RB that could get the job done with NO blocking. Truth is, had Spielman done his job and provided a real OL APs career would have been insanely successful. Instead, AP was given more hurdles to overcome and he did well despite our OL. Its all been a big waste. We have had ONE year where we came close to a sniff of a Super Bowl (thanks to a GB QB on loan-THEY know how to draft and groom QBS), thats it. THAT is not success. And the whole time, the weakest part of our team has been, and continues to be the OL.

Once again, no. Sullivan was out all last year and Berger played exceptionally well. Sullivan was out with a back issue. There was no guarantee he was coming back and automatically started. If anything, he's the one that had to beat out Berger and obviously didn't. So I'm still baffled on where you're getting this information regarding Sullivan.

TJ Clemmings is a liability and he isn't comparable to Kalil. Which is why I say he's serviceable. It's not saying much but I'll tell you right now, I'd give the world up to have Kalil back right now.

Also I don't buy the band aid thing with AP. I don't care who you are you don't run for 2,000 + yards behind a "bad" OL after just coming off an ACL.

[Pondering Her Percy]

In response to the last two posts:

1) @ PHP: I think our OL was OK in pass pro against the Jaguars, so I'm left to wonder if this is a talent related thing or a coaching issue. You and I have different views on Asiata (though I don't love him, I just think you assign way too much of the deficient run o to him), but I think when AD gets back we'll see similar production. Our OL gets ZERO push. Loadholt was known for his run blocking, which is why AD loved him and lobbied for him to get paid, and his absence hurts us a lot.

2) @squatch: while I think you may be right, there are others, like me, who are kind of in between. I don't think it's time to fire Rick, but he has made some mistakes and I don't see why we can't discuss and critique them here. He put together a questionable line with a philosophy rooted in quantity over quality. It was costly because of the number of guys we had to pay and it rendered a poor performance. Yes, injuries should mitigate the critiques of Spielman a bit. But the fact remains, he put together a second rate starting line and it bit him in the backside. We need to invest in OL--a fact that has been clear for years.

See so answer me how he can run for 1400 yards last year behind TJ Clemmings? And Fusco at RG? And Kalil. That's what confuses me most. Boone is a mauler in the run. So I felt that if anything he would help. Berger is Berger. I'm not sure whats going on to be honest.

[mansquatch]

2) @squatch: while I think you may be right, there are others, like me, who are kind of in between. I don't think it's time to fire Rick, but he has made some mistakes and I don't see why we can't discuss and critique them here. He put together a questionable line with a philosophy rooted in quantity over quality. It was costly because of the number of guys we had to pay and it rendered a poor performance. Yes, injuries should mitigate the critiques of Spielman a bit. But the fact remains, he put together a second rate starting line and it bit him in the backside. We need to invest in OL--a fact that has been clear for years.

I'm not saying you can or can't critique anything. Go for it!

My view on this is that I don't feel Spielman's body of work justifies termination. I'd even go so far as to say it is praise worthy, but others don't feel that way. That is their opinion and that is OK too. I just don't share it.

[Mothman]

See so answer me how he can run for 1400 yards last year behind TJ Clemmings?

In no small part it's because Peterson is that good. He's been able to make up for a lot of bad blocking in his career and he definitely did so last year. However, the blocking wasn't inadequate all the time (even from Clemmings) and between Peterson's acceleration and tackle-breaking ability, he had the ability turn small holes into big gains and big holes into TDs.

[Mothman]

My view on this is that I don't feel Spielman's body of work justifies termination. I'd even go so far as to say it is praise worthy, but others don't feel that way. That is their opinion and that is OK too. I just don't share it.

I think one of the main problems we (as a board) have in this discussion is many of us hold very different views about what should justify the termination of a head coach or GM. I think Spielman has done some praise-worthy things during his time with the Vikings but I also think the nature of a competitive league like the NFL demands more. For me, even if a head coach or GM has done a relatively good job, if they aren't the coach or GM that's going to take the team all the way then the team needs to move on. Clearly, a determination like that is made on both evidence and instinct but that's how I feel about it, which is why I took unpopular positions on both Dennis Green and Brad Childress even though both were leading the Vikes to winning seasons. I now find myself in a similar position regarding Spielman.

[mansquatch]

The thing that I'm stuck on with the OL is the conclusion that the plan this year was bad. It is easy to say the results this year suck, but do they suck because of the plan or the injuries?

For me, timing is a big part of this, so let’s walk down that road again:

Going into the 2016 offseason our OL looked like this:
Kalil
Fusco
Berger
Harris
Clemmings

It was widely expected that we would get back Sullivan and Loadholt and it was widely known that Clemmings was our biggest problem. So right away, the thought is that the biggest issues is solved by Loadholt returning. So then, the weak link is guard and the thought is we can handle having Fusco or Harris start, but probably not both. It was also widely held here that Harris would beat out Fusco. So they sign Boone. Kalil is not loved, but he was kept because he was considered as good as what was out there in FA. I know opinions there vary. They added Andre Smith as a backup contingency in hopes that Clemmings would safely be on the bench learning where he belongs.

At this point the expected starting product is:

Kalil
Boone
Berger/Sullivan
Harris/Fusco
Loadholt – Smith – Clemmings

They also added Sirles somewhere along the way.

In the draft they didn’t really add much of anything. This is certainly worthy of debate and or scorn. I didn’t like the Treadwell move, but whatever. There are a large amount of statistics that say a 1st round OL is not likely to start these days anyways, so it is doubtful that adding a rookie here would have helped. Certainly debatable.

On July 25th Loadholt retires. 2016 would have been his 7th season as a pro. Is it fair to think this was a surprise? I think so, the decision making to this point obviously assumed he’d be back. You can say that is right or wrong, but why would you assume he’d retire? We have to assume the Vikings had access to all the medical and training info. Are we to presume we have a better feel for that than they do? I guess it is possible, but it sure doesn't seem very likely. I know opinions vary here. Somewhere along the way, Harris also goes on non-football whatever list, effectively putting him on IR. This was completely unexpected as well, they pushed to resign him in March.

On Aug 30th, the Vikings release Sullivan. They felt Berger was better and Sullivan refused to rework his contract. This one is a bit more dubious, but it was the one position on the line where we had a competent back up. To me this one was a push given Berger’s performance in 2015. Probably a cap friendly move as well.

So now our line looks like:
Kalil
Boone
Berger
Fusco
Smith

By week 2 Kalil had a hip injury and Smith had a torn Triceps. After the week 6 bye week we’d acquired Jake Long who went down 3 weeks later. (He was playing well in that 3rd game, maybe there is a future there?) Now we have the product we are currently suffering through.

My main contention here is that the problems they were solving in Free Agency were not a complete picture of the mess we now find ourselves in. At that point both Loadholt and Sullivan were thought to be returning as well as adding Andre Smith and Alex Boone, effectively replacing 3 out of 5 linemen from 2015.

It seems to me that the conclusion that the Plan was bad is based on the assumption that Spielman could have or should have predicted Phil Loadholt was going to retire, that Mike Harris was going to go MIA, and/or that they didn’t do more at Tackle. However, they did add Smith to battle it out with Loadholt at RT, so then it comes down to Kalil. So should they have tried to replace a guard and TWO(!) tackles in FA? Was that even possible under the cap? Was there someone better than Kalil available? I guess they could have ignored the issues at Guard and tried to solve it that way, but in March such a move would have seemed highly dubious. Many of us felt they needed help at Guard, in fact most thought it was the top priority, given Loadholt’s return.

On top of all this is the fact that I’ve brought up many times, which is that going into the season we had two of five guys playing in the same place as 2015, plus a new coach. In that situation it is expected that the line would need time to reach its potential. Amidst all the turmoil they have yet to have more than a 2-3 games with any consistency on the line. So the “Plan” has never had the benefit of consistent playing time which is an additional hurdle.
My conclusion on the “plan” is that it is unknown if it was good or not. We never got to see the planned replacements at any level play, nor did we get to see the starters play with any amount of continuity. For me to say the plan was a bad plan would require me to accept the premise that these things were not based in luck and/or were predictable. I do not find that persuasive.

I do agree the plan has failed, that is obvious. I’m just not convinced there was anything the GM could have or reasonably would have done to fix it. I know opinions will vary on this. Have fun. (Especially you Jim!)

[Mothman]

The thing that I'm stuck on with the OL is the conclusion that the plan this year was bad. It is easy to say the results this year suck, but do they suck because of the plan or the injuries?

For me, timing is a big part of this, so let’s walk down that road again:

Going into the 2016 offseason our OL looked like this:
Kalil
Fusco
Berger
Harris
Clemmings

It was widely expected that we would get back Sullivan and Loadholt and it was widely known that Clemmings was our biggest problem. So right away, the thought is that the biggest issues is solved by Loadholt returning. So then, the weak link is guard and the thought is we can handle having Fusco or Harris start, but probably not both. It was also widely held here that Harris would beat out Fusco. So they sign Boone. Kalil is not loved, but he was kept because he was considered as good as what was out there in FA. I know opinions there vary. They added Andre Smith as a backup contingency in hopes that Clemmings would safely be on the bench learning where he belongs.

At this point the expected starting product is:

Kalil
Boone
Berger/Sullivan
Harris/Fusco
Loadholt – Smith – Clemmings

They also added Sirles somewhere along the way.

In the draft they didn’t really add much of anything. This is certainly worthy of debate and or scorn. I didn’t like the Treadwell move, but whatever. There are a large amount of statistics that say a 1st round OL is not likely to start these days anyways, so it is doubtful that adding a rookie here would have helped. Certainly debatable.

On July 25th Loadholt retires. 2016 would have been his 7th season as a pro. Is it fair to think this was a surprise? I think so, the decision making to this point obviously assumed he’d be back. You can say that is right or wrong, but why would you assume he’d retire? We have to assume the Vikings had access to all the medical and training info. Are we to presume we have a better feel for that than they do? I guess it is possible, but it sure doesn't seem very likely. I know opinions vary here. Somewhere along the way, Harris also goes on non-football whatever list, effectively putting him on IR. This was completely unexpected as well, they pushed to resign him in March.

On Aug 30th, the Vikings release Sullivan. They felt Berger was better and Sullivan refused to rework his contract. This one is a bit more dubious, but it was the one position on the line where we had a competent back up. To me this one was a push given Berger’s performance in 2015. Probably a cap friendly move as well.

So now our line looks like:
Kalil
Boone
Berger
Fusco
Smith

By week 2 Kalil had a hip injury and Smith had a torn Triceps. After the week 6 bye week we’d acquired Jake Long who went down 3 weeks later. (He was playing well in that 3rd game, maybe there is a future there?) Now we have the product we are currently suffering through.

My main contention here is that the problems they were solving in Free Agency were not a complete picture of the mess we now find ourselves in. At that point both Loadholt and Sullivan were thought to be returning as well as adding Andre Smith and Alex Boone, effectively replacing 3 out of 5 linemen from 2015.

It seems to me that the conclusion that the Plan was bad is based on the assumption that Spielman could have or should have predicted Phil Loadholt was going to retire, that Mike Harris was going to go MIA, and/or that they didn’t do more at Tackle. However, they did add Smith to battle it out with Loadholt at RT, so then it comes down to Kalil. So should they have tried to replace a guard and TWO(!) tackles in FA? Was that even possible under the cap? Was there someone better than Kalil available? I guess they could have ignored the issues at Guard and tried to solve it that way, but in March such a move would have seemed highly dubious. Many of us felt they needed help at Guard, in fact most thought it was the top priority, given Loadholt’s return.

On top of all this is the fact that I’ve brought up many times, which is that going into the season we had two of five guys playing in the same place as 2015, plus a new coach. In that situation it is expected that the line would need time to reach its potential. Amidst all the turmoil they have yet to have more than a 2-3 games with any consistency on the line. So the “Plan” has never had the benefit of consistent playing time which is an additional hurdle.
My conclusion on the “plan” is that it is unknown if it was good or not. We never got to see the planned replacements at any level play, nor did we get to see the starters play with any amount of continuity. For me to say the plan was a bad plan would require me to accept the premise that these things were not based in luck and/or were predictable. I do not find that persuasive.

I do agree the plan has failed, that is obvious. I’m just not convinced there was anything the GM could have or reasonably would have done to fix it. I know opinions will vary on this. Have fun. (Especially you Jim!)

I'll keep it relatively simple since I'm repeating myself. Suffice to say, I think it was a bad plan because they relied heavily on injury-prone tackles (especially Loadholt, who missed 22 straight games and whose retirement was a distinct possibility, even if not entirely predictable—I literally posted about the possibility here on the board). They didn't put particularly good young, developmental players behind them. Clemmings is especially awful and yet after a disastrous rookie season, they were willing to have him as their primary backup at left tackle.

The unreliable tackles proved unreliable and the bad second year tackle has played poorly. None of that is surprising.

I also think it was a bad plan because Sullivan was coming off 2 back surgeries and was unlikely to be the same player he'd been a few years earlier. Berger and Harris are career backups who really still belong in backup roles. I know PFF has puffed up Berger and many Vikes fans think he and Harris are good starters but I feel that's setting the bar low. Fusco had one good season and he's been a disappointment ever since. Along with Kalil, those 3 players represent 4/5 of a line that was highly problematic a year ago and was in clear need of an upgrade. Adding Boone wasn't enough, although he's been a solid player in the league and should have been more of an upgrade at guard than he's been.

Considering the severity of the OL problems in 2015 and adding in the need for an infusion of more young talent to provide depth and help build a better line for the future, nearly everything about the plan looks bad to me. The Vikings relied on hopes of smooth sailing with a collection of players highly unlikely to provide it. They failed to lay the groundwork for a better present or future on the line. In other words, they had a bad plan.

[PurpleKoolaid]

We are, IMO, worse off now then we were before Rick came in. Rick has the Wilfs, the previous coaches had Red McCombs. Think about it.

The Defense is your main defense on Rick being good at his job? Guess who had more to do with our D then Rick? Ricks be an average GM, just like the other average GM's out there. Except I think he has more of a green light and money then some.

I didnt see him mentioned this before, I only skimmed through it, but 2 words. John Carlson.


I could agrue about this forever but it would end up being between me and 1 other person and I'd get the boot, so im going to hold my tongue. But since Rick came here as VP of PP, till now, we aernt on much better shape. And yes that time counted.

[Texas Vike]

I'll keep it relatively simple since I'm repeating myself. Suffice to say, I think it was a bad plan because they relied heavily on injury-prone tackles (especially Loadholt, who missed 22 straight games and whose retirement was a distinct possibility, even if not entirely predictable—I literally posted about the possibility here on the board). They didn't put particularly good young, developmental players behind them. Clemmings is especially awful and yet after a disastrous rookie season, they were willing to have him as their primary backup at left tackle.

The unreliable tackles proved unreliable and the bad second year tackle has played poorly. None of that is surprising.

I also think it was a bad plan because Sullivan was coming off 2 back surgeries and was unlikely to be the same player he'd been a few years earlier. Berger and Harris are career backups who really still belong in backup roles. I know PFF has puffed up Berger and many Vikes fans think he and Harris are good starters but I feel that's setting the bar low. Fusco had one good season and he's been a disappointment ever since. Along with Kalil, those 3 players represent 4/5 of a line that was highly problematic a year ago and was in clear need of an upgrade. Adding Boone wasn't enough, although he's been a solid player in the league and should have been more of an upgrade at guard than he's been.

Considering the severity of the OL problems in 2015 and adding in the need for an infusion of more young talent to provide depth and help build a better line for the future, nearly everything about the plan looks bad to me. The Vikings relied on hopes of smooth sailing with a collection of players highly unlikely to provide it. They failed to lay the groundwork for a better present or future on the line. In other words, they had a bad plan.

I agree. If you go back and read some pre-draft threads from last spring, you'll see that posters like Jim, DP, Los Perros myself and others pointed out the inept approach Spielman was taking with the line. Loadholt, in particular, was super dubious to return and be counted on as a starter for the season. Rick seemed to take fliers on developmental guys (Easton, Sirles, Yankey, Clemmings) that had a low likelihood of success. It was as if his philosophy was: "plug any old 300 plus pound hog in there and that should do it" instead of giving the position its due respect.

I wanted Doctson, so I was wrong about what position we most needed. I was blinded by Doctson's insane talent! But I wanted OL in rounds 2 and 3 or if Doctson were picked ahead of us (as it happened ... and crushed my soul! ).

Also, @ MOTH: Great point upthread regarding Ricker's bungling of the QB position too. He has a tendency to get behind the eight ball and then have to react in a manner that weakens the team. I can certainly imagine a GM that anticipates potential issues on the horizon and plans for them ahead of time instead of reacting to them. And the issues are glaringly obvious to casual fans (OK, maybe not "casual" some of you all are pretty serious in your devotion to the Purple!), so they really ought to be to the GM too. Like Jim said, to be an NFL GM is a dream job that everyone wants--you better be unbelievably talented if you want to stick around, because there's a million guys waiting to replace you.

[Pondering Her Percy]

The thing that I'm stuck on with the OL is the conclusion that the plan this year was bad. It is easy to say the results this year suck, but do they suck because of the plan or the injuries?

For me, timing is a big part of this, so let’s walk down that road again:

Going into the 2016 offseason our OL looked like this:
Kalil
Fusco
Berger
Harris
Clemmings

It was widely expected that we would get back Sullivan and Loadholt and it was widely known that Clemmings was our biggest problem. So right away, the thought is that the biggest issues is solved by Loadholt returning. So then, the weak link is guard and the thought is we can handle having Fusco or Harris start, but probably not both. It was also widely held here that Harris would beat out Fusco. So they sign Boone. Kalil is not loved, but he was kept because he was considered as good as what was out there in FA. I know opinions there vary. They added Andre Smith as a backup contingency in hopes that Clemmings would safely be on the bench learning where he belongs.

At this point the expected starting product is:

Kalil
Boone
Berger/Sullivan
Harris/Fusco
Loadholt – Smith – Clemmings

They also added Sirles somewhere along the way.

In the draft they didn’t really add much of anything. This is certainly worthy of debate and or scorn. I didn’t like the Treadwell move, but whatever. There are a large amount of statistics that say a 1st round OL is not likely to start these days anyways, so it is doubtful that adding a rookie here would have helped. Certainly debatable.

On July 25th Loadholt retires. 2016 would have been his 7th season as a pro. Is it fair to think this was a surprise? I think so, the decision making to this point obviously assumed he’d be back. You can say that is right or wrong, but why would you assume he’d retire? We have to assume the Vikings had access to all the medical and training info. Are we to presume we have a better feel for that than they do? I guess it is possible, but it sure doesn't seem very likely. I know opinions vary here. Somewhere along the way, Harris also goes on non-football whatever list, effectively putting him on IR. This was completely unexpected as well, they pushed to resign him in March.

On Aug 30th, the Vikings release Sullivan. They felt Berger was better and Sullivan refused to rework his contract. This one is a bit more dubious, but it was the one position on the line where we had a competent back up. To me this one was a push given Berger’s performance in 2015. Probably a cap friendly move as well.

So now our line looks like:
Kalil
Boone
Berger
Fusco
Smith

By week 2 Kalil had a hip injury and Smith had a torn Triceps. After the week 6 bye week we’d acquired Jake Long who went down 3 weeks later. (He was playing well in that 3rd game, maybe there is a future there?) Now we have the product we are currently suffering through.

My main contention here is that the problems they were solving in Free Agency were not a complete picture of the mess we now find ourselves in. At that point both Loadholt and Sullivan were thought to be returning as well as adding Andre Smith and Alex Boone, effectively replacing 3 out of 5 linemen from 2015.

It seems to me that the conclusion that the Plan was bad is based on the assumption that Spielman could have or should have predicted Phil Loadholt was going to retire, that Mike Harris was going to go MIA, and/or that they didn’t do more at Tackle. However, they did add Smith to battle it out with Loadholt at RT, so then it comes down to Kalil. So should they have tried to replace a guard and TWO(!) tackles in FA? Was that even possible under the cap? Was there someone better than Kalil available? I guess they could have ignored the issues at Guard and tried to solve it that way, but in March such a move would have seemed highly dubious. Many of us felt they needed help at Guard, in fact most thought it was the top priority, given Loadholt’s return.

On top of all this is the fact that I’ve brought up many times, which is that going into the season we had two of five guys playing in the same place as 2015, plus a new coach. In that situation it is expected that the line would need time to reach its potential. Amidst all the turmoil they have yet to have more than a 2-3 games with any consistency on the line. So the “Plan” has never had the benefit of consistent playing time which is an additional hurdle.
My conclusion on the “plan” is that it is unknown if it was good or not. We never got to see the planned replacements at any level play, nor did we get to see the starters play with any amount of continuity. For me to say the plan was a bad plan would require me to accept the premise that these things were not based in luck and/or were predictable. I do not find that persuasive.

I do agree the plan has failed, that is obvious. I’m just not convinced there was anything the GM could have or reasonably would have done to fix it. I know opinions will vary on this. Have fun. (Especially you Jim!)

This is my view through and through. Good post.

[Pondering Her Percy]

We are, IMO, worse off now then we were before Rick came in. Rick has the Wilfs, the previous coaches had Red McCombs. Think about it.

The Defense is your main defense on Rick being good at his job? Guess who had more to do with our D then Rick? Ricks be an average GM, just like the other average GM's out there. Except I think he has more of a green light and money then some.

I didnt see him mentioned this before, I only skimmed through it, but 2 words. John Carlson.


I could agrue about this forever but it would end up being between me and 1 other person and I'd get the boot, so im going to hold my tongue. But since Rick came here as VP of PP, till now, we aernt on much better shape. And yes that time counted.

Once again, read my post either on this page or the last one regarding the shape we're in now compared to back then. It's not even comparable. When was the last time we could say, we don't really have a single gaping hole on defense?? I don't think we could ever say that.

As for the offense. Yeah our OL sucks and we need to probably fish for a new RB but we have 2 QBs that can get it done and win, have a solid TE having a career year, and have young solid WRs that are costing us next to no money.

How in the world are we worse off? I don't understand it. Just because we got murdered by injuries this year and have a bad OL, you act like we need to go into full on rebuilding mode again. It's nowhere even close to that. If you recall, Spielman had to do that when he got here.

Do you truly believe he has to do that now?? Like I said, now and back then isn't even comparable.


Side note: I mentioned before that the mistakes made by Spielman, Carlson was one of the biggest ones. However, a move like that (very stupid) didnt necessarily set us back for years or something. So i'm not sure why you're still dwelling on that so much. It was a bad signing. It happens all around the league

[Mothman]

As for the offense. Yeah our OL sucks and we need to probably fish for a new RB but we have 2 QBs that can get it done and win, have a solid TE having a career year, and have young solid WRs that are costing us next to no money.

Bridgewater is out with an injury so serious his career is in jeopardy. Until he comes back from that and proves he can play at a starting level, he probably shouldn't be considered an asset.

I'd argue that the defense and Adrian Peterson were the main reasons he was able to "get it done and win" anyway.

How in the world are we worse off? I don't understand it. Just because we got murdered by injuries this year and have a bad OL, you act like we need to go into full on rebuilding mode again. It's nowhere even close to that. If you recall, Spielman had to do that when he got here.

Do you truly believe he has to do that now??

I don't think he had to go into "full rebuilding mode" in 2006-07 either, although the team definitely needed more more talent. I see the situation now as similar: some pieces are in place but there are big question marks that need attention. The defense is in good shape but the o-line needs to be rebuilt. The RB and QB positions are likely to need additional quality talent in the next season or two. There's some important work to be done if this team is going to become a championship winner.

The Vikes definitely aren't facing a complete rebuilding job and I do think they're in better shape than they were when Spielman was first hired but the 10 year yield is underwhelming, to say the least (ditto for the 5 year yield).

[Mothman]

I agree. If you go back and read some pre-draft threads from last spring, you'll see that posters like Jim, DP, Los Perros myself and others pointed out the inept approach Spielman was taking with the line. Loadholt, in particular, was super dubious to return and be counted on as a starter for the season. Rick seemed to take fliers on developmental guys (Easton, Sirles, Yankey, Clemmings) that had a low likelihood of success. It was as if his philosophy was: "plug any old 300 plus pound hog in there and that should do it" instead of giving the position its due respect.

I think you've nailed it.

Also, @ MOTH: Great point upthread regarding Ricker's bungling of the QB position too. He has a tendency to get behind the eight ball and then have to react in a manner that weakens the team.

Thanks and thanks for that last sentence too. You've concisely made a point I always struggle to phrase.

I can certainly imagine a GM that anticipates potential issues on the horizon and plans for them ahead of time instead of reacting to them. And the issues are glaringly obvious to casual fans (OK, maybe not "casual" some of you all are pretty serious in your devotion to the Purple!), so they really ought to be to the GM too. Like Jim said, to be an NFL GM is a dream job that everyone wants--you better be unbelievably talented if you want to stick around, because there's a million guys waiting to replace you.

Well said and it sure would be a nice to see a GM like that in Minnesota!