Vikings Off-Season Thread

[twins1095]

 

I'm just not in favor of cutting the cord as the body of work and everything he's built is in the middle of their window for success.  When you keep changing leadership, the direction gets lost.  I'm just not ready.  I don't see the rush in moving him.  A lot of QB injuries have prevented this team from finding more success than they have had with the current talent base.  I'm not placing the entire blame on Rick for a fluke injury to the franchise QB Bridgewater and a sudden degenerative knee issue for Bradford.  Combined with sudden injuries to the OL with Kalil, Sullivan, Fusco and Easton among others with tough luck on Shariff Floyd...those are bad breaks.  Has he had some swings and misses?  Yeah, too many in the 1st round although three were busted due to injury.  Patterson and Treadwell come to mind.  But a lot of hits too.  Rudolph, Cook, Bradbury (hopefully), Rhodes, Diggs, O'Neill, Hunter, Weatherly, Kendricks, Barr, Smith, Alexander, (Hughes?), with low-round and UDFA hits in Fusco, Thielen, Wilson, Harris among others.  He's also been aggressive in FA while not overpaying. 

I still rank him as a better than average GM all considered.  I'm not in a rush to see him booted.   You guys will have to do more than provide their playoff record to convince me.     

 

 

I think a good case study that is local to Minnesota fans is Chuck Fletcher.  A lot of folks were calling for Fletcher's head despite taking a team with almost no talent in the minors or on the NHL team and create a consistent contender with a strong minor league pipeline as well.  He did have misses, but generally his logic was sound and made sense. 

 

 The Wild were an expansion draft away from really sustaining success (losing Haula/Tuch/Scandella essentially to keep others).  Bottom line despite some misses and bad trades and moves that one could question, Fletcher's overall body of work was pretty successful.  

 

A lot of folks near the end of that tenure wanted something better as they grew used to and expected success.  What did the Wild do?  They hired Paul Fenton.  Who, as we know was much much worse.

 

It can get A LOT worse than Spielman.  A LOT WORSE.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I think a good case study that is local to Minnesota fans is Chuck Fletcher. A lot of folks were calling for Fletcher's head despite taking a team with almost no talent in the minors or on the NHL team and create a consistent contender with a strong minor league pipeline as well. He did have misses, but generally his logic was sound and made sense.

 

The Wild were an expansion draft away from really sustaining success (losing Haula/Tuch/Scandella essentially to keep others). Bottom line despite some misses and bad trades and moves that one could question, Fletcher's overall body of work was pretty successful.

 

A lot of folks near the end of that tenure wanted something better as they grew used to and expected success. What did the Wild do? They hired Paul Fenton. Who, as we know was much much worse.

 

It can get A LOT worse than Spielman. A LOT WORSE. Be careful what you wish for.

Sure it can get worse. But it can also get better.

Each fan is entitled to their own level of enjoyment.

I know some just want quality competitiveness game in, game out, and anything beyond that is just a bonus.

That's fine, but I don't share that view.

The Vikings have never won a Super Bowl. They've never even been to one in my lifetime. And I'm not that young. Going 10-6 or 13-3 and winning 0 or 1 playoff games does absolutely nothing for me.

The Wild finishing with 90+ points and a first round playoff loss every year did absolutely nothing for me.

The Twins winning 6 divisions in the 00's, but getting swept out of the playoffs every year did absolutely nothing for me.

There is almost no difference to me between those outcomes, and being the worst team in the league. They all end the same either way.

 

For me, the regular season is just prelims. It's just seeding for the games that actually matter.

 

Again, I realize many disagree. I've had this discussion here before, and I'm in the minority. And that's fine. I don't think the opposing view is wrong, and I don't disparage it. The regular season just does very little for me, that's all.

 

So while they could do worse than Spielman, it'd make very little difference to me. But at least they'd have a shot at doing better.

 

I agree that Spielman does pretty well with personnel, aside from the offensive line. I think his biggest mistake has been hitching his fate to Zimmer, who IMO is a great defensive coach, but has a mediocre ceiling as a head coach.

[twins1095]

 

Sure it can get worse. But it can also get better.
Each fan is entitled to their own level of enjoyment.
I know some just want quality competitiveness game in, game out, and anything beyond that is just a bonus.
That's fine, but I don't share that view.
The Vikings have never won a Super Bowl. They've never even been to one in my lifetime. And I'm not that young. Going 10-6 or 13-3 and winning 0 or 1 playoff games does absolutely nothing for me.
The Wild finishing with 90+ points and a first round playoff loss every year did absolutely nothing for me.
The Twins winning 6 divisions in the 00's, but getting swept out of the playoffs every year did absolutely nothing for me.
There is almost no difference to me between those outcomes, and being the worst team in the league. They all end the same either way.

For me, the regular season is just prelims. It's just seeding for the games that actually matter.

Again, I realize many disagree. I've had this discussion here before, and I'm in the minority. And that's fine. I don't think the opposing view is wrong, and I don't disparage it. The regular season just does very little for me, that's all.

So while they could do worse than Spielman, it'd make very little difference to me. But at least they'd have a shot at doing better.

I agree that Spielman does pretty well with personnel, aside from the offensive line. I think his biggest mistake has been hitching his fate to Zimmer, who IMO is a great defensive coach, but has a mediocre ceiling as a head coach.

 

 

I guess your presumption is that Spielman/Fletcher/Zimmer or whomever couldn't lead a championship run given more time to do so--which is where we would disagree.  I trust relatively sound-decision making, planning, and identifying talent which I believe both Fletcher and Spielman have/had.  

 

Fletcher, for example, did a really solid job in taking an awful team and trying to build it into a Stanley Cup team.  They fell just short.  Partly because of running into a dynasty like Chicago, partly because they never hit on a truly elite Center/Forward (hard to do so drafting late so often as well), and partly because they were a team that relied on an elite 2nd/3rd/4th line because of their lack of high-end talent and that depth was taken from them by the expansion draft.  

 

Regardless, they had a year where they were arguably the best team in the league.  They legitimately had cup chances and generally made the right moves or the right types of moves for the situations they were in and the information they had at the time (which did not always work out).  I think given a few opportunities to build a team, Fletcher could have hit and taken the Wild to a Cup.  I understand that's not the way the GM position works or fans analyze the position.

 

I think for Spielman it's much the same way.  I really don't think you can get better than Spielman within reason.  Spielman has put together multiple teams that if you run a simulation 100 times would probably have won in a good percentage of those times (09 and 17), that's really all you can ask for from a GM.  The rest is luck, bounces, moments, and situations that are really down to a coin flip and outside the control of a GM.  Just because they HAVE NOT won does mean they COULD NOT have won.  

 

The 09 Vikings could easily have won the Superbowl, but they didn't and they didn't not win because of their GM.  I think the Vikings could have won the superbowl in 09 and then you'd think very differently about Spielmen even though nothing would really be different.

[Mr. Brooks]

I guess your presumption is that Spielman/Fletcher/Zimmer or whomever couldn't lead a championship run given more time to do so--which is where we would disagree. I trust relatively sound-decision making, planning, and identifying talent which I believe both Fletcher and Spielman have/had.

 

Fletcher, for example, did a really solid job in taking an awful team and trying to build it into a Stanley Cup team. They fell just short. Partly because of running into a dynasty like Chicago, partly because they never hit on a truly elite Center/Forward (hard to do so drafting late so often as well), and partly because they were a team that relied on an elite 2nd/3rd/4th line because of their lack of high-end talent and that depth was taken from them by the expansion draft.

 

Regardless, they had a year where they were arguably the best team in the league. They legitimately had cup chances and generally made the right moves or the right types of moves for the situations they were in and the information they had at the time (which did not always work out). I think given a few opportunities to build a team, Fletcher could have hit and taken the Wild to a Cup. I understand that's not the way the GM position works or fans analyze the position.

 

I think for Spielman it's much the same way. I really don't think you can get better than Spielman within reason. Spielman has put together multiple teams that if you run a simulation 100 times would probably have won in a good percentage of those times (09 and 17), that's really all you can ask for from a GM. The rest is luck, bounces, moments, and situations that are really down to a coin flip and outside the control of a GM. Just because they HAVE NOT won does mean they COULD NOT have won.

 

The 09 Vikings could easily have won the Superbowl, but they didn't and they didn't not win because of their GM. I think the Vikings could have won the superbowl in 09 and then you'd think very differently about Spielmen even though nothing would really be different.

2009 was Brad Childress.

Spielman was here then, but he wasn't in charge of personnel decisions until after Childress was fired.

 

I don't think the 2017 team would many titles in 100 simulations. It's really hard to win a SB with a guy like Case Keenum.

It's happened before, Trent Dilfer comes to mind, but it doesn't happen often.

 

I get what you are saying, but how many years are you willing to throw away hoping that eventually a Fletcher or a Spielman does win a championship? At some point you have to decide that a guy is good at building for the regular season, but not for the postseason.

And I don't believe the postseason is just a smaller sample size of the same thing.

 

Honest question, not rhetorical, how long do you give Spielman before it's no longer just bad luck or randomness? What if they're a .500 team again this year? That 2017 team starts to look an awful lot like the outlier if they go 7-9 or 8-8 this year.

[Badsmerf]

What is the fascination with Spielman? In the NFL, a QB can take a mediocre team into a super bowl team... like your 09 example. That was chilly and Favre, then it all collapsed. Run the simulation on 2017, and the Vikes might not make the playoffs nonetheless beat the Eagles. Also, every team has a chance to improve drastically every year in the NFL. Players don't take years to develop, they can have immediate impacts. Players can be put into roles that allow them to shine, something the patriots are excellent at. GM decisions and coaching can change everything in a short time.

 

I don't Spielman can hang his hat on his body of work. Nobody is immune to expectations. I used to beat my head against the wall in the late 2000's with Terry Ryan defenders. It was annoying that anyone would defend a guy with an embarrassing payoff record, but it happened and still does.

[Bavarian]

@Badsmerf, who said they were "fascinated" with Spielman?  I've seen nothing but fair commentary pointing out the good and bad.  Reasonable people can disagree with you on this.  And to claim that the only barometer for success is your team's playoff record is missing the boat IMO.  Many other factors to judge a body of work.  I agree with the notion that you may be regret what you wish for.

 

One thing is certain, I always disagree with your posts.  Just saying.