Vikings Message Board.Com

So admittedly, I am the best looking guy in this Message Board, and by far the most knowledgeable about Spinoza. But truth be told, there are folks here who know more than I do about football. Yes, it's hard to admit that, but I feel compelled to do so.

Still, even an ignoramus like me, given an opportunity to quit my job and devote myself to football full time, could probably do as well as the next NFL GM in wheeling and dealing and picking players in the first round of the draft. I would have known, for example, to select AD and Randy Moss, to avoid making Troy Williamson a lottery pick, and to steer clear of Christian Ponder altogether. (Maybe I'd have taken a look at Ponder in the middle rounds -- and definitely would have nabbed him in the late rounds had I known who he was going to marry.)

As far as I'm concerned, most of us football fans, even those of known more for our looks than our brains, could do just fine during picks 1-32. What really makes a fan GM-worthy is whether s/he can excel during rounds 2-7 and during free agency (the field from which our own beloved Johnny Randle was picked). We've all heard enough examples of guys who were picked deep in the draft and ended up being among the best players in the history of the game. And for all the Bradys and the Montanas, there are surely a dozen or more who won't make the Hall of Fame but will end up playing in multiple Pro Bowls. Those are the guys who nicely fill out the rosters of Super Bowl winners.

With that as a preface, allow me to ask a question -- and I will frame this in non-leading fashion but truly out of the spirit of inquiry. How, over the years, has our current GM done with his non-first round selections compared to other NFL GMs? Is he at or near the very best? At least among the top third? Top half? Is he instead in the bottom half? Or is he near the bottom of the barrel?

I haven't done the analysis. But maybe some of you have, or maybe you are interested in taking an initial look at the question. This much I do know -- if we are going to subject to our QB, OL, linebackers, OC, and Head Coach to an incredible degree of scrutiny, it behooves us to at least see what we have at the GM position. And when you're evaluating a GM, you have to open your eyes to their track record after round one. If anyone here is willing to take a shot at that, I would be appreciative.

The Gerhart pick was dubious.

THere was an analysis posted on here awhile back from I think PFF where they talked about the value of draft picks and the in a nutshell the argument it put fourth was that statistically the vast majority of a team's contributors (starters) come from the 1st and 2nd round. It also made the point, again statistically that the later round picks were as much luck as anything else given the chance they would pan out.

I guess I would look at it in more simplified terms. For every Erin Henderson how many undrafted guys never see the field? My guess is quite a few. For that matter, for every Josh Robinson or Jarius Wright, how many mid round guys never see the field or are relegated to just special teams? Again, I suspect quite a few.

I do agree that a GM that can consistently uncover value in these rounds is a boon for a franchise, but I would also argue that in the end it is how well that same GM hits on the 1st and 2nd rounders that will really cause a team to shine. Case in point is Christian Ponder. Spielman has done, IMO, very well in the early rounds. However, he has one major blackeye (based on current play) and unfortunately it is the QB.

Also, I think it is REALLY easy to look at the draft with hindsight and criticize decision making. But that isn't fair to the GM, IMO. The real measure is if you would have picked a Russel Wilson or Kaepernick over some other guy in one of those later rounds at that particular moment without hindsight or anything else. Also, you are competing with 31 other GMs who all have unlimited scouting resources. Why did that pass on Guy X for Guy Y? Why are you smarter than them? Do they know something you don't? Etc. Etc. Etc.

I also think that in the mid to later rounds there is an element of risk taking that goes on. Mauti is a great example. High Injury Risk, but potential. League valued him as a 7th round risk. Webb is another one. Raw, undeniable athletic talent. Can he be developed? (putting him at QB was such a collossal error...)

I think another area we as fans overlook is the mental aspect of not just the game, but the league. Matt Kalil has to eat an extremely regimented diet of something like 6000 calories a day to be in playing shape. Think about the day to day personal discipline in takes to maintain that, plus do his workouts, plus do all his prep, plus working to improve as a player. That is very serious stuff. Not every guy out there is going to have the mental stones to do that. How do you know on draft day which ones do?

I find this aspect of the league fascinating, but I think as fans we know enough to get into trouble, but not enough to be truly critical without the benefit of hindsight.

DanAS wrote: and to steer clear of Christian Ponder altogether. (Maybe I'd have taken a look at Ponder in the middle rounds -- and definitely would have nabbed him in the late rounds had I known who he was going to marry.)

What really makes a fan GM-worthy is whether s/he can excel during rounds 2-7 and during free agency (the field from which our own beloved Johnny Randle was picked).

With that as a preface, allow me to ask a question -- and I will frame this in non-leading fashion but truly out of the spirit of inquiry. How, over the years, has our current GM done with his non-first round selections compared to other NFL GMs? .

1. On Ponder......the flaw in your statement is that, had he been drafted in the late rounds, he would not have married Samantha. He probably would have been stuck with Rachel Nichols or even worse, Suzie Kolber.

2. Wasn't Randle and undrafted free agent?

3. The quickest, dirtiest way to answer your last question is to look at the starters and how they were acquired. So here goes (please correct any mistakes)


S- Smith, 1st round
S - Sanford, 7th round (and he plays like it)
CB - Cook, early 2nd round
CB - Rhodes, 1st round
CB - Robsinson, 3rd round (this looked like a great pick last year, but he seems to be having a sophmore slump maybe due to position change)
LB - Greenway, 1st round
LB - Henderson, ???? later pick
LB - Mitchell,Bishop - FA
DE - JA, Trade
DL - Kevin Williams 1st round
DL - Evans, FA
DE - Robison and Griffen (both 4th rounders)
OT - Kahlil, 1st round
OG - Johnson, FA
C - Sullivan, 6th round
OG - Fusco, who cares
OT - Loadholt, 2nd round
WR - simpson, jennings, FA
WR - Wright, 4th round
TE - Rudolph 2nd round
QB - POnder, 1st
RB - AD 1st

Of these, I'd say that Robinson, Robison, Griffen, Loadholt, Wright, Sullivan, Cook and Rudolph are all contributers drafted in Rounds 2-7. I think all of these guys were drafted by Spielman, but not sure about Sullivan.

But I don't know how this compares to other teams. So basically, I threw out a lot of information but didn't really contribute anything useful to your post Sorry, but its a good topic and hope some others can provide more detail than I can!

mansquatch wrote:
THere was an analysis posted on here awhile back from I think PFF where they talked about the value of draft picks and the in a nutshell the argument it put fourth was that statistically the vast majority of a team's contributors (starters) come from the 1st and 2nd round. It also made the point, again statistically that the later round picks were as much luck as anything else given the chance they would pan out.

I think I remember that, there was also one (or maybe the same?) that might have been from PFF, I can't remember. But it basically looked at how many draftee's a team had that were either starters or contributed in some way (special teams) and IIRC we scored pretty well on it. Even just looking at the list Vikingpaul73 made you can see a lot of drafted players there.

I don't know how helpful these will be:

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2012/1/14/ ... ft-history
http://vikingsterritory.com/2013/analys ... d-with-kab

Here are another couple of links that may be helpful:

How the current roster was assembled

Entire Minnesota Vikings draft history

You also need to take into account trades. For example, trading a bunch of those lower round picks for a 1st rounder. For example, Harrison Smith should be evaluated based on the average value of an early second AND fourth round pick rather than ignoring him completely because he was selected in the first round. Same with Patterson.

Picking number three overall is easy like you said, but determining what you're willing to trade to get another player in the first is much more difficult.

mansquatch wrote:I guess I would look at it in more simplified terms. For every Erin Henderson how many undrafted guys never see the field? My guess is quite a few.

That's a ridiculous way to look at UDFAs. What you should look at is how many are on the team. Every team signs a dozen or more UDFAs to fill their 90 man roster every spring. You don't worry about how many never make it. They're a bonus. They cost you nothing. If you can find someone like Erin Henderson due to your college player scouting ability, that's just icing on the cake. The Vikings have eight undrafted free agents (that they originally signed) on the team, and a couple more on their practice squad:

Cullen Loeffler (2004)
Erin Henderson (2008)
Marcus Sherels (2010)
Matt Asiata (2011)
Larry Dean (2011)
Chase Baker (2012)
Bobby Felder (2012)
Zach Line (2013)

And they have a couple more UDFAs that were originally signed by other teams: MBT, A.J. Jefferson, George Johnson, Andrew Sendejo.

For that matter, for every Josh Robinson or Jarius Wright, how many mid round guys never see the field or are relegated to just special teams? Again, I suspect quite a few.

That's a different story. This is where a scouting and personnel department earns its money and where successful team are built.

maembe wrote: For example, Harrison Smith should be evaluated based on the average value of an early second AND fourth round pick rather than ignoring him completely because he was selected in the first round. Same with Patterson.

Average value or who else was there they could have taken instead? Before they made that trade, I was hoping the Vikings would take Bobby Wagner in the 2nd. Smith's been great, but is he better than Wagner + a 4th? It's not like we didn't need LB help.

I think rounds 1-3 the fanbase can get pretty close to the actual pick, if you go back through the draft day threads you can see a number of people making the right pick or the pick being one of their top "BPA." I agree that one really does earn their paycheck in the latter rounds. However, even the first round picks are not the easiest.

If you look back, AD was far from a unanimous pick, in fact there were a number of people who wanted Brady Quinn. Same with Jimmy Clausen when he started to fall. I was upset with the Ponder pick, I wanted Fairley with Mallett in the 2nd. In hindsight Fairley looks to be the better pick (who knows about Mallett) but I've had my share of misses too, I thought Brian Brohm was going to be a good QB and I wasn't a fan of Kaepernick despite watching him play in person for four years at Nevada.

mansquatch wrote:I do agree that a GM that can consistently uncover value in these rounds is a boon for a franchise, but I would also argue that in the end it is how well that same GM hits on the 1st and 2nd rounders that will really cause a team to shine. Case in point is Christian Ponder. Spielman has done, IMO, very well in the early rounds. However, he has one major blackeye (based on current play) and unfortunately it is the QB.

I actually think there's another big black eye and that's the secondary. Smith looks to be a great pickup but before him there were a number of poor picks. Cedric Griffin wasn't the greatest corner but he was probably the only other halfway decent guy we grabbed high that somewhat panned out. The rest is filled with guys like Tyrell Johnson, Marcus McCauley, Asher Allen, Chris Cook, and Josh Robinson. Even our free agent pickups (outside of Winfield) has been rather bad, your Benny Sapp, Frank Walker, Lito Shephard, Bowman's of the world.

I don't know if it's inability to coach these guys up or just a failure in scouting but our picks in the secondary leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe Cook or Robinson can turn it around but it's not looking too promising right now.

Crax wrote: Average value or who else was there they could have taken instead? Before they made that trade, I was hoping the Vikings would take Bobby Wagner in the 2nd. Smith's been great, but is he better than Wagner + a 4th? It's not like we didn't need LB help.

It seems silly to measure success based on the absolute best player selected that those spots in the draft in hindsight. If we got the third best combination of players in the NFL for those picks, would you consider that a failure? The idea is to measure how good we are at drafting compared to the average team, so why wouldn't you compare it to the average?

maembe wrote: It seems silly to measure success based on the absolute best player selected that those spots in the draft in hindsight.

I didn't mention Russel Wilson. I was talking about someone who we may have taken in the 2nd instead and was using a position they were supposedly considered drafting.

so why wouldn't you compare it to the average?

Because it could be a big difference between drafts? Redskins traded up to get a 1st rounder for RG3, would they have considered that a year before or after? While a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, the depth of the years draft can vary greatly. I think you have to look at who else was available where the Vikings were picking in the 2nd that they traded based on the year they did it.

Eli wrote: That's a ridiculous way to look at UDFAs. What you should look at is how many are on the team. Every team signs a dozen or more UDFAs to fill their 90 man roster every spring. You don't worry about how many never make it. They're a bonus. They cost you nothing. If you can find someone like Erin Henderson due to your college player scouting ability, that's just icing on the cake. The Vikings have eight undrafted free agents (that they originally signed) on the team, and a couple more on their practice squad:

Cullen Loeffler (2004)
Erin Henderson (2008)
Marcus Sherels (2010)
Matt Asiata (2011)
Larry Dean (2011)
Chase Baker (2012)
Bobby Felder (2012)
Zach Line (2013)

And they have a couple more UDFAs that were originally signed by other teams: MBT, A.J. Jefferson, George Johnson, Andrew Sendejo.

That's a different story. This is where a scouting and personnel department earns its money and where successful team are built.

I guess I'm missing your point. In both cases it comes down to scouting. The biggest (only) difference is that you expense a draft pick for the mid round guys and as you put it, the UDFA cost you nothing. My overall point was about the scouting aspect of it and the fact that statistically there are many, many more of these guys that do not pan out than those that do. So to the OP's topic, what does this mean in evaluating a GM. To me in both cases it really comes down to how thse guys contributed on the field. In saying that it is also apparent that coaching has a role in the overall success. So then do you rate the GM not just on hisability ot find quality players, but also on hiring the right coaching staff to get he most out of the talent.

On this latter pont Mothman and I are in a viscious ( ) dispute. I would make a csase that right now our coacing staff isn't passing muster on this point whether it be unrealized talent or regression. So the MGMT hires also matter.

That's the thing about the later round picks. These guys don't have the overwhelming amount of talent 1st round picks do so there are many more factors that determine whether they can even be useful or not.

It can be about the scheme, obviously a 3-4 linebacker has little chance in a 4-3 system so that is a limiting factor. Then I'd say it really depends on the positions coach if they know what they're doing but also how well they can work with a less talented player and find a role for them. Then does the offensive / defensive coordinator run a system they can thrive in? If they are a "safe" or "conservative" player they might fit better in a 4-3 cover2, but if you play an aggressive blitz heavy version than that player isn't going to "fit" there and is unlikely to develop into it because of the lack of talent.

Do they get the reps or even the CHANCE to step their game up and prove them self? Do they have the work ethic and intelligence to be coached up? These are the crucial things these players need because it's 100% about the fundamentals and technique as that's the only way they can compare to guys with more talent. And even if they do it may also just not be enough to matter in the end still.

It's a lot of different factors but the point is, the GM selecting someone and making a pick is like 10% of the equation past the 5th round. In all honesty I would probably rate a GM's drafting on the first, second, and third round picks. After that I'd actually look at the teams positional coaches as more of "how are our late rounds doing?"

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: And who's playing S right now? Sanford and then Raymond or some other late round flier? Eww. Our pass D would blow even worse than it already does.

That was just an example of doing it comparatively to who else you could have taken. If we didn't move up for smith, who knows if we would have drafted a different safety in the 3rd that year or this year. It's hard to know.