Vikings Message Board.Com

IrishViking wrote:Regardless of how you feel about our GM I think, for better or worse, the sheer absurd amount of injuries on the line this year completely insulates him against termination due to its poor play. He can very reasonably argue, well, if any of the guys I picked up had, had more than 3 games together to play and learn we would have done much better.

I think his job is quite secure at this point.

allday1991 wrote: if that's the case, the o-line debacle falls mainly on him, time to let him go.

That's a pretty poor approach to firing a guy. I guess Carolina's GM should be fired because his DBs are awful. Or Elway should be fired because they had no plan after Manning. Or Schneider should go because Seattle's OL is terrible. Or GB's should be fired because they cant defend the pass. Or maybe even Arizona's or Cincinnati's because they just cant find a way to win.

If you ask me, bringing in someone else as a GM posts a high risk for failure. It's hard to find a GM that is willing to build through the draft and not overspend in FA. Look at how many have failed over the years by doing the complete opposite.

We currently have the #1 defense in the NFL, good WRs, a good TE, decent enough QBs, a HOF RB and a very bad OL (average when healthy). So by looking at all that, we should fire him because the two most important positions on the OL went down with injury and now the OL is a "debacle"?? I dont see it being worth the risk nor a good reason to fire a GM that is fairly solid in every other position outside the OL. I highly doubt they go into this draft without their primary focus being OL.

Mothman wrote: I think his job is quite secure at this point.

As it should be IMO. I truly believe that if we didnt get bit by the injury bug this year we would be anywhere between 10-6 and 12-4. It would have practically been the same team as last year and everyone having another year under their belt. No less the #1 defense in the league. IMO, that's not failure on Spielmans part. Or Zimmer's part. It's more bad luck if anything

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Well then whats the point of bringing them up when they werent viable options. You knew where we picked, you knew where those tackles were going to go (top 10 range), you knew it was out of the question for us. So why bring them up?

Because it was the idea I put forward BEFORE the draft happened.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: As for Penn, last time I checked, the Bucs released him back in 2014 because he rarely lived up to his $41 million contract he signed in 2010, was going on age 31 and struggled with weight issues. AT THE TIME, it was Matt Kalil's second season, with his first making a pro bowl appearance. Penn was nothing but a band-aid for the Raiders at the time. He was an average LT that finally took off when he got to Oakland.

I'm not talking about 2014. I'm talking about last year. Yes, he would have been a band-aid. I've specifically said that would be the idea since I first proposed the idea in the offseason.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Point being, why would we go and sign Donald Penn when we have a young LT that has played 2 seasons and one of them being a pro bowl season???? It doesnt even make sense. No less Penn was an average at best OT back then.

see above.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: It's pretty easy to sit here NOW and hand pick who we "should" have signed seeing how well they have or havent played. Dont bother trying to sit here and say you "wanted" Penn back in 2014. He was average back then. And we had a high priced early pick that was in a pro bowl his rookie year and only going into his 3rd season.

again, see above.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Our offensive line SHOULD HAVE been Dallas' (easy to say right?), but everything isnt always sunshine and rainbows

This is just nonsense.

fiestavike wrote:
Because it was the idea I put forward BEFORE the draft happened.

Ok? And we're 30 weeks removed from the draft and you posted that a few days ago. But you're still saying they should have been one of our tackles? Unrealistic

I'm not talking about 2014. I'm talking about last year. Yes, he would have been a band-aid. I've specifically said that would be the idea since I first proposed the idea in the offseason.

Hmm weird. Last time I checked Donald Penn never left Oakland. He had a visit or two scheduled but re-signed with Oakland before anyone else could lay their hands on him. So answer me how we were suppose to sign him or go after him when he doesn't even get out of the state of California?


Bottom line is, your proposition of signing Donald Penn and drafting Stanley, Tunsil, Conklin or Decker last year pretty much baffles me. One of those tackles was a realistic option that we would have had to give up a decent amount to trade up for and the other never left Oakland or visited with any other teams so there was really no chance to signing him

I still think a lot of the criticism is a result of hindsight. Go back and read the 2015 draft thread, there's a whole lot of talk about WR, CB, S, MLB, and even RB. The only tackle who is really mentioned is Scherff, who was taken 5th. I hardly see any pounding of the table back then to go heavy offensive line. Some wanted us to draft a Guard but that would have done nothing for our tackle situation and Boone is probably as good as any of the prospects.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:If you ask me, bringing in someone else as a GM posts a high risk for failure. It's hard to find a GM that is willing to build through the draft and not overspend in FA. Look at how many have failed over the years by doing the complete opposite.

People keep fussing over the high risk of failure in replacing Spielman when the Vikes have won a single playoff game in the decade he's been with the team (and that in a season where they practically stumbled into a Hall of Fame quarterback).

That is failure.

So, I ask again: what is it the Vikings should cling to so desperately? If they make a change, there's no reason to think the risk of failure is greater than the potential reward of success.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:As it should be IMO. I truly believe that if we didnt get bit by the injury bug this year we would be anywhere between 10-6 and 12-4.

Well, if there's a trait that's been extremely common among Vikes fans since Zimmer was hired, it's belief.

S197 wrote:I still think a lot of the criticism is a result of hindsight.

Of course a lot of it is criticism in hindsight. It's a lot harder to criticize events before they occur! However, criticism in hindsight isn't illegitimate and people here often use that word is if that's the case. It's just easier because we all have the advantage of seeing how decisions have played out over time.

People on this forum and elsewhere have cautioned against the exact pitfalls we've seen this season and many of those we've seen in the past.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:As it should be IMO. I truly believe that if we didnt get bit by the injury bug this year we would be anywhere between 10-6 and 12-4.

Well, if there's a trait that's been extremely common among Vikes fans since Zimmer was hired, it's belief. [/quote]

Jim, this is a little unfair. If Blair Walsh makes a 27yd field goal the 2015 goes into Carolina in 2015 and is a top 4 team in the NFC last year. They were a missed kick away from taking the eventual SB champion that season to OT in their house. It isn't much of a stretch to think based on what we've seen this year that if both tackles had remained healthy we'd have the record PHP suggests. Heck, I think if they canned Walsh before the season started they'd probably have 2 more wins than they have now. This doesn't even take into account how not having AP changes the way DC's play us.

Given that backdrop it is very fair to ask you why you think someone else would be better? You keep talking about consistent mistakes, but you seem to be discounting the fact that he built a championship caliber defense in your analysis. You say you are not, but the fact is you are proposing to throw that track record out in the HOPE or BELIEF that the guy they hire will be able to maintain the current Defensive drafting efficacy AND do better on offense.

There are what two or three GMs in the entire NFL that have built a Defense as solid as ours? (DEN, SEA, ???) This is why I think there is high risk to such a move. It seems highly unlikely that the next guy that comes in is going to have the same elite defensive success AND be better on offense. It is very fair to ask you who you BELIEVE will do the job better and why.

Mothman wrote: Of course a lot of it is criticism in hindsight. It's a lot harder to criticize events before they occur! However, criticism in hindsight isn't illegitimate and people here often use that word is if that's the case. It's just easier because we all have the advantage of seeing how decisions have played out over time.

People on this forum and elsewhere have cautioned against the exact pitfalls we've seen this season and many of those we've seen in the past.

Yes, blanket cautions are easy to make. If Spielman's mistakes have been so obvious, then why were there no calls to go get multiple tackles in the early rounds? There's more discussion on Devante Parker and Landon Collins than there is on any lineman.

Lets say we heavily focused on the line. What would we have done at MLB? Or when Newman retires?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum and yet people here treat it as so. Maybe if Kendricks, or Waynes, or Hunter were busts but they look like pretty solid picks to me. The last few drafts were not flops, we extracted a lot of nice talent out of those picks.

This was a team that was 5-10 three years ago, there were a lot of holes to fill. I think the team is a heck of a lot better today than 3 years ago. Sure there are still holes to fill but at least the old holes haven't re-opened. In fact, if we can patch the line, I'd say the team is pretty well set up for a good stretch of strong performance.

mansquatch wrote:Jim, this is a little unfair.

I think it's fair. I've heard that exact word brought up again and again since Zimmer was hired, particularly in regard to Zimmer and Bridgewater.

If Blair Walsh makes a 27yd field goal the 2015 goes into Carolina in 2015 and is a top 4 team in the NFC last year.

But he didn't hit it. We keep coming back to this point: hypothetical accomplishments aren't accomplishments.

They were a missed kick away from taking the eventual SB champion that season to OT in their house. It isn't much of a stretch to think based on what we've seen this year that if both tackles had remained healthy we'd have the record PHP suggests.

It's an entirely hypothetical argument. There is simply no way to know how the season would have gone if the Vikings had remained healthy.

Given that backdrop it is very fair to ask you why you think someone else would be better?

I've answered that at least a dozen times by now.

You keep talking about consistent mistakes, but you seem to be discounting the fact that he built a championship caliber defense in your analysis. You say you are not, but the fact is you are proposing to throw that track record out in the HOPE or BELIEF that the guy they hire will be able to maintain the current Defensive drafting efficacy AND do better on offense.

I say I'm not discounting the quality of the defense because I'm not discounting it (although I'm not convinced it's championship-caliber either). I keep posting this and I can't emphasize it enough: a championship-caliber defense isn't the equivalent of a championship caliber team. Extremely unbalanced teams have been a Vikings trademark far too long and that trend has continued during the Spielman era. As far as I'm concerned, that's a huge problem and one a top 5 defense doesn't alleviate any more than having a top 5 offense under Tice (before Spielman arrived) alleviated the problem of a terrible defense. I'm not convinced the Vikes need to maintain their current defensive drafting efficacy to win it all but I am convinced they need to put together a much better offense and field more balanced teams.

There are what two or three GMs in the entire NFL that have built a Defense as solid as ours? (DEN, SEA, ???) This is why I think there is high risk to such a move. It seems highly unlikely that the next guy that comes in is going to have the same elite defensive success AND be better on offense. It is very fair to ask you who you BELIEVE will do the job better and why.

I don't know who the Vikings next GM should be but I've posted a list of potential candidates three times now in 3 different threads (including this one, on page 2).

Whether a new GM coulde the same defensive success and be able to put together a better offense is immaterial to me, although it certainly wouldn't be impossible for a new GM to accomplish that. Whether they could or not, what's most important to me is that the Vikings find someone who can build a championship team. I don't care if that team ranks in the middle of the pack on offense and defense if they're balanced enough and good enough as a whole to win it all.

I think it's a mistake to continually focus on defensive draft success or the quality of the defense rather than the bigger picture, which is that the team's failings, and Spielman's missteps as a GM and personnel man, have continually offset his successes, resulting in teams too flawed to finish the job they set out to do each season. We've seen Vikings teams like this for decades. Green had teams with either top offenses or defenses that were too flawed to finish. So did Tice. So did Childress. So does Zimmer. His teams follow in that not-so-grand tradition.

Nearly 10 years. 1 playoff win. Another wildly unbalanced team. I just think it's time to move on.

S197 wrote:Yes, blanket cautions are easy to make. If Spielman's mistakes have been so obvious, then why were there no calls to go get multiple tackles in the early rounds? There's more discussion on Devante Parker and Landon Collins than there is on any lineman.

Lets say we heavily focused on the line. What would we have done at MLB? Or when Newman retires?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum and yet people here treat it as so. Maybe if Kendricks, or Waynes, or Hunter were busts but they look like pretty solid picks to me. The last few drafts were not flops, we extracted a lot of nice talent out of those picks.

This was a team that was 5-10 three years ago, there were a lot of holes to fill.

Rick Spielman had a LOT to do with the state of that team.

Think about it: why have there been so many years in the past decade where the Vikings had a "lot of holes to fill"? Who's been doing the drafting? Who's been running the personnel department? Who's been part of the ToA and then GM?

I don't understand the enthusiastic, passionate defense of mediocrity on this board.

Mothman wrote:

Rick Spielman had a LOT to do with the state of that team.

Think about it: why have there been so many years in the past decade where the Vikings had a "lot of holes to fill"? Who's been doing the drafting? Who's been running the personnel department? Who's been part of the ToA and then GM?

I don't understand this enthusiastic, passionate embrace of mediocrity.

For me it's not about passion, it's about continuity. I don't necessarily think the benefits of removing Spielman outweighs the risks. Yes, he's had a share of the team's performance over the past decade but the amount is something we'll never know. If we look at his tenure as a GM, when he's had his staff in place, I think he looks considerably better. That would be after the team went 5-10.

If you look over that period you have a team with a winning record, a NFC North title, and as close a playoff game as they come. Why exactly are we wanting to burn all of that down right now? Because someone else hired Childress who was replaced by subordinate Frazier with no candidates interviewed?

I don't think Spielman is great, I think he botched the QB situation big time. And could have put ore emphasis on the O-line. But again, I'm just of the opinion that given the performance since Zimmer has been here, I'll take continuity over the unknown.

S197 wrote:For me it's not about passion, it's about continuity. I don't necessarily think the benefits of removing Spielman outweighs the risks. Yes, he's had a share of the team's performance over the past decade but the amount is something we'll never know. If we look at his tenure as a GM, when he's had his staff in place, I think he looks considerably better. That would be after the team went 5-10.

If you look over that period you have a team with a winning record, a NFC North title, and as close a playoff game as they come. Why exactly are we wanting to burn all of that down right now? Because someone else hired Childress who was replaced by subordinate Frazier with no candidates interviewed?

I don't see much connection between the second question and the first but I don't want to burn it all down. Quite the opposite., I want to see it truly built up.

I don't think Spielman is great, I think he botched the QB situation big time. And could have put ore emphasis on the O-line. But again, I'm just of the opinion that given the performance since Zimmer has been here, I'll take continuity over the unknown.

I'd take the unknown but I understand your view as expressed above and I definitely understand why you'd prefer to see continuity. However, I'm no more impressed by the Zimmer era than I was by the two that came before it, at least not at this point.

It seems one of the main issues separating views on this is how each of us perceive Spielman's role prior to 2012 and prior to hiring Zimmer. Personally, I think he had a pretty well-defined, significant role within the organization so I don't consider his overall contribution particularly mysterious. I think he has to be held accountable for his entire tenure in Minnesota.

mansquatch wrote:
Jim, this is a little unfair. If Blair Walsh makes a 27yd field goal the 2015 goes into Carolina in 2015 and is a top 4 team in the NFC last year. They were a missed kick away from taking the eventual SB champion that season to OT in their house. It isn't much of a stretch to think based on what we've seen this year that if both tackles had remained healthy we'd have the record PHP suggests. Heck, I think if they canned Walsh before the season started they'd probably have 2 more wins than they have now. This doesn't even take into account how not having AP changes the way DC's play us.

Given that backdrop it is very fair to ask you why you think someone else would be better? You keep talking about consistent mistakes, but you seem to be discounting the fact that he built a championship caliber defense in your analysis. You say you are not, but the fact is you are proposing to throw that track record out in the HOPE or BELIEF that the guy they hire will be able to maintain the current Defensive drafting efficacy AND do better on offense.

There are what two or three GMs in the entire NFL that have built a Defense as solid as ours? (DEN, SEA, ???) This is why I think there is high risk to such a move. It seems highly unlikely that the next guy that comes in is going to have the same elite defensive success AND be better on offense. It is very fair to ask you who you BELIEVE will do the job better and why.

Great post mansquatch as well as S197. Agree entirely. Not to nit-pick but we would have played Arizona not Carolina. Who we nearly beat last season with Joseph, Barr and Smith out. We had a legit shot to go to the NFC championship if it wasnt for Walsh.

Hypothetical or not, I'm not going to sit here and say Spielman is a failure because Walsh choked on a chip shot. And like I said before, nobody on this team has REGRESSED. This TEAM hasnt regressed IMO. We literally had to modify our entire offense into quick drops because of these tackles going down. If those injuries didnt hit I'm sure Turner would still be here as well. An offense CANT get better when you lose your starting QB, HOF RB, and two most important positions on the OL. Yet you (Jim) continue to hold the offensive struggles over Spielman and Zimmers head. Did you expect something different when these injuries happened? I sure didnt. Not much we could have done when something like that happens.

Also as I said before, not many GMs out there are willing to build through the draft and limit free agency spending. I don't want a GM that does the opposite. It would put us in a huge hole. Spielman is a guy that has a goal of getting 10 picks per draft and sprinkles in FA. That is what a good GM should do IMO.

I also never saw much of DRAFT OL DRAFT OL last draft either. Most everyone was leaning heavily towards Treadwell and other WRs. Now half the board does nothing but complain about him and don't take into consideration what happened in front of him and the fact that he is a rookie just like Waynes was last year. I've said time and time again, we wouldnt have this elite defense if we went in the other direction and this board would be flooded with Spielman haters saying he doesnt know how to draft LBs or CBs or have no depth on the DL, etc.

Granted, you want to have a balance but they always say defense wins championships but I would MUCH rather have the defense we have instead of a New Orleans offense. A high powered offense can't do a whole lot when you don't have a defense that can keep you in games. New Orleans has the NUMBER ONE total offense in the entire NFL and they are 5-8. NUMBER ONE. We have the number 1-2 total defense in the entire NFL with an injury riddled bottom barrel offense and we're 7-6 and have a good shot at finishing a few games above .500.

I'm not worried about this team at all. I'm truly not. We have the majority of our defense back next year and have excellent depth on top of that. We have good WRs, a good TE and two QBs that are, AT WORST, game managers however I wouldnt necessarily consider them that. Who knows what happens with AP next year but this is the class to find a RB. OL needs work obviously. But it's not like we are some bottom barrel team that needs to rebuild again. We have A LOT in place already.

Look at the top teams in the NFL right now. Dallas.....fully healthy, Oakland....fully healthy, New England.....fully healthy, etc. If anyone sits here and says this isn't a 10-6 team AT WORST if those injuries don't hit, I truly have to question your football knowledge.

This was the year of bad luck for us. Not other way to put it. Blame whoever you want but it was the year of bad luck. Our own damn coach had to miss a game for gods sake. And we are STILL in it. Not 1-12, not 3-10, not bottom feeding.

I see no reason Spielman should be fired and he won't be. This was a team a few years back that had holes EVERYWHERE. No QB, no WRs, no defense, no depth. Look at what we have now. But since our offense has struggled due to injuries and in turn, the offense isn't performing, this guy should go now?? Sorry. But I disagree 110%. There is no need for a change. We have a coach (who was hand-picked and hired by Rick Spielman) that is highly touted and has these guys dialed in with the right attitude and heading in the right direction, an elite defense, and an offense that has plenty of weapons but just can't get out of their own way when it comes to injuries. Sh** happens. It's football. I see no reason why offense isn't the main focus this offseason and I'm sure it will be along with providing more depth along the defense.