Fire Spielman too?

[Mothman]

You're right though, a lot of emphasis has been put on the offense and as of right now, even with ponder, freeman, cassel that offense is ranked 12th in scoring and has been in the top 10 for most of the year. I'm sure most people are willing to say our QB situation blows pretty bad so to be 12th or top 10 earlier on is really a testament to how much talent is on this offense to get there with absolutely horrible QB play.

... and yet somehow Musgrave is still commonly cast as an incompetent offensive coordinator.

[Mothman]

Jim, I counted the 2nd round (Rudolph) as Day 1. My mistake. I do consider the 2nd round to be a good place to find talent though. (most years)

Agreed!

I figured that was what happened but I wanted to be sure I was on the same page with you.

[mansquatch]

I think the focus on offense was because everyone in the NFL knows the key to keeping a job is the QB. After 2011 they addressed OL (not completely) and it was obvious that hte single biggest need on the team was WR. So they went after that position group with a vengence in 2013. Also, going into 2011 the offense was a total train wreck . We basically had #28 and John Sullivan. The Defense was showing signs of being ugly, but the Offense was Ugli-er!

They added three top picks to the defense from 2012 to 2013, but it was too little too late and the bottom fell out from the unit with the DL aging and the secondary going nuclear with injuries and guys busting out.

I have concerns about the cieling of the Cover 2 scheme as well. As I showed in a previous post, the apex of this defensive scheme with these coaches seems to have been 21 PA/G and 1.5 TO/G. In terms of the defensive staff, I think that means changes are coming. We are declining on both fronts and it is obvious we need a significant talent infusion. There isn't much evidence to think we'll get much better than 21 PA and the 1.5 TO givein the history here, so IMO, it is time for a change. I think the scheme is part of the problem, the Cover 2 emphasizes 3rd and long and zone coverage, but the modern NFL QB and WR is eating up zone defenses these days. So you get a sack with your highly paid Front 4 and then the QB makes a completeion for 17 yards and it is 1st and 10.

[mansquatch]

I'm not sold on the Musgrave sucks thing. Defensively I think we need a philosophy chnage as well as more talent. Looking at hte stats like I did yesterday has me convinced that we know what we'll get from this defense/coaching combo even with better talent. IMO, the league is leaving the zone defense behind and the 21 PA/G is going ot keep getting worse.

[Mothman]

Jim, my big question whenever we go down this road is this: What is the average "hit rate" on draft picks in the NFL?

Teams have 55 man rosters plus what 5 practice squad members? If you are picking 8-10 guys a cycle that would imply the roster turns over completely every 6 years. We know that is not always the case. Some guys play for a decade or more. Others never make it out of training camp. So again, the question becomes "what is a good hit rate?" It is obviously less than 100%. Is it 90%? 80%? 50%?

I've never seen this answered and I've never attempted to answer it, so I'm not criticizing, just pointing out that any analysis of success/failure is not really based on anything more than "gut" when it comes to this topic.

It's a BIG question and maybe trying to answer it would be a good offseason research project for us. I definitely think it's important to at least get some perspective on it. I also think the question within that question is very significant. In other words, before we can figure out what constitutes a good hit rate in the draft, we have to determine what to consider a hit. Is it a starter? A good starter? A contributor? How many years of starting or contributing in another role are necessary before a player can be considered a hit in the draft for a GM?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it but we'd need some sort of criteria to adequately answer the question.

IMO, Spielman has a strong record in Rounds 1 and 2. IMO, that really matters as that is where you get the best prospects. Picks like Troy Williamson/ Demetrius Underwood are devastating. We've also seen some success in mid-rounds as well as some in the late rounds. IMO this is a positive. The obvious black mark is the Ponder pick. On that one I give Spielman a pass simply because I think there were two factors at play: 1.) They HAD to take a QB due to Joe Webb being the only QB on the roster at the time. (Thank you Chilly...) 2.) QB is a luck proposition in the NFL IMO.

I think jury is still out on his more recent record in R1 and R2 but so far, the results are encouraging.

12 is looking quite good. Early returns on 13 are promising from the top 3. Again, what is typical in the league? People always bash the player eval and draft picks, but we never see a comparison to justify the criticism (or praise...).

I know we've covered it in more depth at some point around here but never with a really thorough examination of the league over a period of years. However, I think it's worth noting that "typical' probably won't get the job (of winning it all) done.

I think the bigger takeaway is the fact that 10 starter quality guys were added to offense while only 3 were added to defense in a 3 year span. If anything this tells us why hthe defense is lagging the offense in the rebuild. My guess is that aside from QB, we should see some help acquired defensively in the coming off season.

I think so too but that neglect of the defense is precisely why Spielman should be taking some heat and why Frazier should be getting some slack. I'm not saying Slick Rick should be fired but it's time to take an increasingly hard look at the job he's done so far and I think he has to be held every bit as accountable for this dreadful season as the coaching staff does.

[mansquatch]

So I crunched 5 years of points against and takeaways per game in the Souhan article thread. I’ve referenced it a bit here and there, but the nuts and bolts are this: In the years where the secondary was healthy, 2009, 2010, and 2012 they average 21 pts/g and 1.4 to 1.5 TO/g. I included 2009 and 2010 to show some years where the talent on defense was younger and probably more uniform throughout the unit. The point here is that IMO, this is the apex of what this coaching staff with talent can most likely achieve. So the question on the defensive staff as well as the Cover 2 scheme they run is if 21 pts/G and 1.5 TO/G are acceptable?

In doing the analysis I noticed that elite defenses tend to average 15-18 Pts/G and closer to 2 TO/G. So IMO, if we want to achieve elite status something needs to change. I’m not convinced that this coaching staff can do better than the above given what we’ve seen when “their” defense had a lot going for it (2009) as well as what we’ve seen when disaster hits (2011 & 2013.) Beyond this, I also think that the NFL is leaving zone defense behind. Basically the Cover 2 tries to force 3rd and long via a sack or stingy defense on 1st and 2nd down. As we’ve seen countless times, when you play a good to great QB, you get them 3rd and 17 and then our secondary gives up the long play in a soft spot of the zone and/or due to poor play by the secondary. Sacks are not reliable enough to get them off the field, unless they happen on 3rd down. (The best sack year was 2011, which averaged 4 a game, over the 5 years they average about 3.3 a game, which is very strong in the league.)

In short, they need to fix the coverage issues and do something to impact completion % as well as the take/give. To me that is the trend that NFL defenses are taking given the rules favoring passing offenses as well as the quality of the modern NFL QB. IMO this points to a need for a defensive philosophy/scheme change. I don’t care about 4-3 vs 3-4, you can create pressure from both sets. What I care about is getting more big plays (Takeaways) and better overall coverage play. I’m not convinced this is going to happen under the current defensive mindset of this football team. In terms of Frasier can that change while he is at the helm? That I do not know, but if I’m Spielman/ The Wilfs that is the question that needs to be answered on Defense because IMO, the trend for this defense is going in the wrong direction, even when healthy.

[mondry]

In terms of Frasier can that change while he is at the helm? That I do not know, but if I’m Spielman/ The Wilfs that is the question that needs to be answered on Defense because IMO, the trend for this defense is going in the wrong direction, even when healthy.

It hasn't changed in the 7 years he's been here and I see no reason for it to change now. Frazier's on record saying "it's the same defense we've had since 2008" even. Unfortunately I'm with you, I've watched all of our games and the trend you'll notice is the soft coverage. In today's NFL there are enough good QB's where if you play 7 on 7 with um and hope the pass rush gets there before they make an easy throw / catch it's just not going to work very well. That's why often enough even average QB's have career days against us.

The original concept of the cover 2 was to stop someone like Randy Moss from just destroying you deep all day and forcing the shorter stuff. The shorter stuff takes more successful plays of course to get down the field, hence the "bend but don't break" mentality, eventually they get a holding penalty, give up a sack, or make mistakes / incompletions. Problem is, now QB's and offenses are so efficient and solid at completing that short stuff that they WILL just dink and dunk you all day. That's how you get games where Rodgers / the packers never punt the entire game. They don't make a mistake which is what the concept relies on and so you just lose. Or like you said, if they do make a mistake, it's no problem, they can just pick up 12 yards on 3rd and 12 next play.

But playing off coverage and what not makes it really hard to get those turnovers you're talking about, at least when it comes to INT's. In 2013 we have 12, and we got to play Eli Manning for 20th place. Last year we had 10, which was good for 27th. 2011 we were dead last in the league with 8 INT's. 2010 17th with 15 int's, and 2009 we ranked 26th with 11 INT's. That's pretty much the jist of it.

Ultimately the "play soft in the secondary and unleash the pass rush" strategy doesn't work anymore. What's working in today's NFL is making sure your secondary plays tight coverage and breaks up passes or at least contests them and it's more about "coverage sacks" rather than praying your D-line can beat their O-line in under 2.5 seconds. In other words, the secondary has to make plays to get off the field, you can no longer rely on the other team to "take themselves" off and stall their own drives and if you want an interception you have to make a play on the ball, not tackle after it's completed in your zone.

[Mothman]

So I crunched 5 years of points against and takeaways per game in the Souhan article thread. I’ve referenced it a bit here and there, but the nuts and bolts are this: In the years where the secondary was healthy, 2009, 2010, and 2012 they average 21 pts/g and 1.4 to 1.5 TO/g. I included 2009 and 2010 to show some years where the talent on defense was younger and probably more uniform throughout the unit. The point here is that IMO, this is the apex of what this coaching staff with talent can most likely achieve. So the question on the defensive staff as well as the Cover 2 scheme they run is if 21 pts/G and 1.5 TO/G are acceptable?

I think it depends on what kind of team you've built and what kind of offense and special teams accompany that defense. The Ravens just won the Super Bowl with comparable numbers. Here's what the past 5 Super Bowl winners have averaged on defense:

Baltimore: 21.5 pts/G; 25 turnovers (1.56 per game)
Giants: 25 pts/G; 31 turnovers (1.9 per game)
Packers: 15 pts/G; 32 turnovers (2 per game)
Saints: 21.3 pts/G; 39 turnovers (2.4 per game)
Steelers: 13.9 pts/G; 29 turnovers (1.8 per game)

I think having a high-powered offense can help increase the number of turnovers a defense is able to force. It doesn't always work out that way but a team with a terrific offense can often put opponents in "catch up" situations, making them one-dimensional, and that can lead to more turnovers.

A cover 2 scheme certainly doesn't prevent a team from forcing turnovers (just look at what some of Lovie Smith's Bears teams did in that area) and Frazier has coordinated a defense that had over 30 turnovers in a season so I think he's capable of fielding a defense that fits in the range of the Super Bowl teams above. I don't know if his approach could ever yield as little as 14-15 points per game or as many as 39 turnovers but personnel plays a role in that stuff too. It's a moot point in regard to Frazier because there's very little chance at this point that he and his staff will return next season.

Anyway, I think those numbers are acceptable but certainly not elite and the team should strive to become elite.

In doing the analysis I noticed that elite defenses tend to average 15-18 Pts/G and closer to 2 TO/G. So IMO, if we want to achieve elite status something needs to change.I’m not convinced that this coaching staff can do better than the above given what we’ve seen when “their” defense had a lot going for it (2009) as well as what we’ve seen when disaster hits (2011 & 2013.) Beyond this, I also think that the NFL is leaving zone defense behind. Basically the Cover 2 tries to force 3rd and long via a sack or stingy defense on 1st and 2nd down. As we’ve seen countless times, when you play a good to great QB, you get them 3rd and 17 and then our secondary gives up the long play in a soft spot of the zone and/or due to poor play by the secondary. Sacks are not reliable enough to get them off the field, unless they happen on 3rd down. (The best sack year was 2011, which averaged 4 a game, over the 5 years they average about 3.3 a game, which is very strong in the league.)

I'm not so sure the league is moving away from zone but I think it's getting away from the Tampa 2. Most teams still use a mix of man and zone coverages. If I'm not mistaken, Carolina's defense is predominantly a zone defense. I think Seattle runs quite a bit of it too and those are two of the better defensive teams in the league. Anyway, I think what needs to change, first and foremost, is the personnel, especially if you want the Vikes to move away from zone defense. Personally, I think a defense without quality personnel in the right places will get destroyed by a good offense, whether they're running a man-to-man scheme or zone. Some players play one scheme better than another but regardless of scheme, the skills it takes to excel on defense must be present and abundant or the defense won't be very good.

In short, they need to fix the coverage issues and do something to impact completion % as well as the take/give. To me that is the trend that NFL defenses are taking given the rules favoring passing offenses as well as the quality of the modern NFL QB. IMO this points to a need for a defensive philosophy/scheme change.

I firmly believe players trump schemes, which isn't to say scheme and coaching aren't important factors in defensive success but rather that the best way to force more turnovers and impact completion percentages is to find players who excel at forcing turnovers (like Tillman does for Chicago or like Ed Reed did in Baltimore), who excel in coverage, who break down the line of scrimmage and play in the backfield, etc.. As I've been saying all season, it doesn't matter what scheme you ask players to run if they aren't good enough to make it work. Scheming and confusing offenses can certainly help lead to big plays but those plays and the takeaways we all covet are primarily the result of players winning matchups. An instinctive CB turns under-thrown passes into INTs. Chris Cook manages to fall in on his face and turn them into completions. The best way to force mistakes from a QB is to pressure him inside, collapse the pocket and then force him out into what is hopefully an oncoming pass rusher.

What I care about is getting more big plays (Takeaways) and better overall coverage play. I’m not convinced this is going to happen under the current defensive mindset of this football team. In terms of Frasier can that change while he is at the helm? That I do not know, but if I’m Spielman/ The Wilfs that is the question that needs to be answered on Defense because IMO, the trend for this defense is going in the wrong direction, even when healthy.

They don't have the "horses". They really don't... I'm ready to see a scheme change but it's not going to make enough difference (if any) without better players. As I said above, I think Frazier's gone so to me the real question is whether the next coach up will have the players he needs to make his scheme succeed.

[mansquatch]

I agree, it is also about your DBs making the QB screw up and capitalizing.

One other point I think is worth making is that the short underneath stuff tests sound tackling and that has been an issue for these defenses for years outside of the greatness of Winfield.

[im4mnvikes]

I agree, it is also about your DBs making the QB screw up and capitalizing.

One other point I think is worth making is that the short underneath stuff tests sound tackling and that has been an issue for these defenses for years outside of the greatness of Winfield.

I think that is what has frustrated me the most with this years defense. We seem to let every team throw the 5-7 yard pass then we miss a tackle and it turns into a 15-20 yard gain. Also, when we have third and 8 we throw a 6 yard pass and get tackled right away and have to punt. The teams we play seem to throw the same pass but because of poor tackling they get the first down.

[Pondering Her Percy]

So let’s look at the Spielman Tenure:

2011:
Draft Picks:
Ponder, QB , RND 1: Bust
Rudolph TE, RND 2: Solid Contributor / Pro Bowl Alternate
Ballard DT, RND 4: Quit the team
A bunch of late round guys, most notable Mistral Raymond and Brandon Fusco
Big Free Agency Moves were essentially Charlie Johnson and Donovan McNabb

2012:
Draft Picks:
Kalil OT RND 1: Solid Player
Smith S RND 1: Strong Player
Josh Robinson CB RND 3: Jury is still out, but not looking good
Jarius Wright WR RND 4: Role Players, decent #3 guy, Deep Threat
Rhett Ellison TE/FB RND 4: Jury is still out
Greg Childs WR RND 4: Injured entire career so far
Blanton CB RND 5: Depth Guy / ST
Walsh K RND 6: Pro Bowl Kicker, strong contributor
Cole LB RND 7: Looks like a potential Starter at MLB
Guyton DE RND 7: ????
Big Free Agency moves were Jerome Simpson, John Carlson, and Jerome Felton

2013:
Draft Picks:
Floyd DT RND 1: Jury is still out
Rhodes CD RND 1: Potential Stud
Patterson WR RND 1: Elite Returner, potential stud WR
Hodges LB RND 4: Jury is out
Locke P RND 5: Solid Contributor
Baca G RND 6: Looks like potential starter to replace Johnson next season?
Mauti LB RND 7: ST, possible starter someday?
2 other guys in RND 7 who are not on the team
Big Free Agency moves: Greg Jennings, Harvin Trade, Winfield Release, Matt Cassell

Phew…

A few things jump out at me. In terms of Free Agency the only significant move on defense since Spielman took over was the release of Winfield. In that same time frame they have added SEVEN players on Offense via Free Agency: (Jennings, Felton, Simpson, Carlson, Cassell, McNabb, and Johnson.) McNabb is thankfully no longer with us. In terms of Day 1 draft picks, Spielman has had 7 picks, of which 3 were on defense. (Smith, Rhodes, Floyd.) It is worth noting that two of those three were last year and thus are still in the rookie learning phase. Smith is an obvious stud at Safety. So in tally of elite prospects Spielman has added 10 players to the offense via Drafting (4) and Free Agency (6) while only adding 3 (draft) to the defense.

I think talent wise most of these players have been decent with the sole exception of Ponder. I’ll take a GM who can hit everywhere like that as I think the QB thing is more luck than anything in the NFL. I know opinions vary on this topic...

So to me the question on Spielman comes down to effectiveness in adding talent. In addressing that I think we should look at where we were in 2011. Is there anyone who would argue that the offense was in better shape going into 2011 than the defense? We had no offensive line aside from Sullivan and a washing out Loadholt. FB was Tahi. (UGH) QB was a joke. (still is.) WR was a moody Harvin and ???, and TE was nobody. Since that time this unit has become a strength for the team at all positions aside from QB. Given the investments Spielman has made here, this is what we should expect. I would say Slick Rick has done a decent job filling out this group other than the QB situation. We've also found some late round goodies in the form of Jarius Wright and Fusco. Ellison and Baca may also prove to be good role players. Let's not forget Felton.

Given the disparity of additions to the offense vs. the defense the current defensive talent situation isn’t a surprise. I suspect we’ll see more attention paid to this side of the ball this offseason as quite literally, the offense only needs a QB.

Very good post. I agree with this as well. Welcome!

[VikingLord]

Realistically there's no real way to jump the gun on firing spielman and feeling good about it. He should get his chance to pick the coaches and align this team's ideal's together from the top on done. I don't believe he buys into the power running game offense nor the soft cover 2 shell defense. You don't draft Patterson to play glorified blocker and you don't draft Rhodes to play soft coverage.

Next year I think we see it come together and a deep playoff run isn't out of the question.

Spielmans found enough talent through out the draft, the problem is the scope of this rebuilding project. If he was drafting for the Pats right now and they had Rhodes and Patterson and Harrison smith back there they'd look pretty good. Problem for us is, for every two holes we fill, a new one opens up and it's going to be that way until we completely over turn this roster and the Winfields, Allens, K.will, and Greenway's all fall off the books and those contracts run their course.

I don't know - in the modern day NFL, are there such things as multi-year rebuilding projects? Are the Vikings really *that* deficient in terms of overall talent compared to their rivals? Heck, the NFC North pretty much disintegrated after team's starting QB's started to drop. The Packers went from a Superbowl contender to a team as inept as the Vikings based on the loss of Rodgers alone. That is stunning when one thinks about it.

The fact is, a GM has to do one thing right in the modern NFL to be considered a success and that's find a competent QB. The talent around that QB doesn't have to be other-wordly either. A middling defense coupled with a an offense that has solid QB play will be in the mix barring injuries. It's not the coach, either. Childress was about as bad a head coach as there is, but with Farve he looked like he knew how to coach a team. Frazier managed to finish with 10 wins riding the back of AD's monster year last year, and I shudder to think what that team might have been able to do with a truly good QB.

So Spielman really should be judged on his ability to evaluate QBs, and in that regard he's been an utter failure. He's committed cardinal sins in this regard that merit his dismissal:

- Not going into this season with a vet he felt could compete for the starting job. Its clear now he felt Cassel was only a backup option. He either lacked the confidence in Cassel to believe he could compete for the starting spot, or he coddled Ponder in an effort to boost his confidence heading into the season, or both. Either way, Ponder had not done enough to warrant that degree of confidence, especially in light of Harvin's obvious opinion of Ponder's ability.
- Signing Freeman. This one speaks for itself by now. It not only indites Ponder, it also forced shuffling at the QB spot mid-season. The Vikings were the laughingstock of the league as Freeman embarrassed himself and them on national TV, and in the Wilf's backyard to boot. If I were Zygi I'd fire him for that alone.

Needless to say, I'm not impressed at all by Rick. He is way overconfident in his ability to evaluate QB talent apparently, and with the Vikings forced to go back to the well this offseason, probably both in FA and in the draft, the Vikings cannot afford to miss on either front again. I have zero confidence Spielman can make those calls at this point. Yes, they are hard calls and there are no guarantees, but that's why the GM gets the big bucks. He should, presumably, have some idea what he's doing and if he doesn't, find people who can do it or hire a consultant or something. If the Wilfs leave Spielman in place, they need to have a clear understanding how Spielman plans to make decisions related to the QB position this offseason.

[Mothman]

I don't know - in the modern day NFL, are there such things as multi-year rebuilding projects? Are the Vikings really *that* deficient in terms of overall talent compared to their rivals? Heck, the NFC North pretty much disintegrated after team's starting QB's started to drop. The Packers went from a Superbowl contender to a team as inept as the Vikings based on the loss of Rodgers alone. That is stunning when one thinks about it.

It's only stunning if you believed they were really a Super Bowl contender in the first place. I think that perception was there because of Rodgers but I'm not sure the transformation you're talking about actually occurred. Losing Rodgers hurt them but at that point in the season, they had lost to the only two playoff-caliber teams they'd faced (SF and CIN) and the teams they had defeated weren't exactly a murderer's row by 2013 standards: Washington, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland and the Vikings. I think they went from playoff contender to struggling team but probably not from Super Bowl contender to struggling team.

Anyway, to address your point, I think there are absolutely multi-year rebuilding projects in the modern NFL. The Panthers and Seahawks are great current examples of such projects coming to fruition. I think Sf represents the culmination of a long rebuilding project.

The fact is, a GM has to do one thing right in the modern NFL to be considered a success and that's find a competent QB.

I don't see that as a fact. It's more like a media-driven over-simplification. Finding a competent QB buys some time and provides some stability but it takes a lot more than a competent QB to stay in contention every year or keep a GM employed over the long haul. It takes playoff wins, if not more, for a GM to be considered a success.

The talent around that QB doesn't have to be other-wordly either. A middling defense coupled with a an offense that has solid QB play will be in the mix barring injuries. It's not the coach, either. Childress was about as bad a head coach as there is, but with Farve he looked like he knew how to coach a team. Frazier managed to finish with 10 wins riding the back of AD's monster year last year, and I shudder to think what that team might have been able to do with a truly good QB.

It would have been interesting but when you start talking about what Favre did in 2009, you're talking about considerably more than just competence at QB.

So Spielman really should be judged on his ability to evaluate QBs, and in that regard he's been an utter failure.

I think Spielman should be judged by the job he's done and his job has not been "find a competent QB". That has been one element of his job and it's an element he's probably only had control of for the past 2-3 years. Admittedly, it's an element where he's been far less than impressive but Ponder is really the only big swing at the position he's taken since joining the Vikings.

I mean no offense, but I really wish everybody who wants to make the modern NFL all about QB performance would wake up to the fact that it simply isn't all about QB performance. That's a media-driven fantasy. Yes, good play at that position is critical to winning a championship but it takes much more than Aaron Rodgers to make a team a real Super Bowl contender and much more than good QB play to make any team a Super Bowl contender.

[mondry]

2010

1 1 Sam Bradford
1 25 Tim Tebow
2 48 Jimmy Clausen
3 85 Colt McCoy QB
4 122 Mike Kafka QB
5 155 John Skelton
5 168 Jonathan Crompton
6 176 Rusty Smith
6 181 Dan LeFevour
6 199 Joe Webb QB
6 204 Tony Pike QB
7 209 Levi Brown QB
7 239 Sean Canfield
7 250 Zac Robinson

So 2010 was just a year where if you needed a QB no matter who you took you were pretty much screwed, and years like that happen.


2011

1 1 Cam Newton
1 8 Jake Locker
1 10 Blaine Gabbert
1 12 Christian Ponder
2 35 Andy Dalton
2 36 Colin Kaepernick
3 74 Ryan Mallett
5 135 Ricky Stanzi
5 152 T.J Yates
5 160 Nathan Enderle
6 180 Tyrod Taylor
7 208 Greg McElroy

So that gives you Newton as a solid QB, Dalton being average, and Kaepernick as a guy with a lot of risk attached to him. Unfortunately for speilman, QB sucked this year as well when we pretty much -had- to take one. Not sure Dalton looks all that good when he can't target AJ Green 170 times. (3rd most in the league, 174 is #1)

2012

1 1 Andrew Luck QB
1 2 Robert Griffin QB
1 8 Ryan Tannehill QB
1 22 Brandon Weeden
2 57 Brock Osweiler QB
3 75 Russell Wilson QB
3 88 Nick Foles QB
4 102 Kirk Cousins QB
6 185 Ryan Lindley QB
7 243 B.J. Coleman QB
7 253 Chandler Harnish QB

Never had a shot at Luck or Griffin and I'm not sold on Tannehill. That leaves Wilson and Foles who in the 3rd round seem like decent pick ups now, so that's 2 guys that had potential here.

2013 - it's still really early for this bunch so it's hard to say but so far doesn't look that great here

E.J. Manuel
Geno Smith
Mike Glennon
Matt Barkley
Ryan Nassib
Tyler Wilson


So basically, in recent years most of the QB's have just been terrible. Especially the ones out side of the #1 pick. (luck, newton, etc)

The way I see it, it was VERY rare to get a good QB in the past few years. You have Dalton, Kaepernick, Wilson, and Foles who may amount to something or may not, their young careers certainly look promising so far but I'm not sure it's reasonable to think Spielman should have been able to pick them out of the pile. The other glaring question is, would any of them even have success under Frazier and Musgrave? Russel Wilson would be my bet but the other 3 could easily flame out here given how they play.

This upcoming draft I see one guy, Bridgewater who has an alright shot to be a good QB in this league. The rest of them look like that 2010 year with Tebow, claussen, and colt mccoy all failing miserably. So that just makes it even harder, is there a russel wilson in the 3rd round you can find? Is there anyone qualified to "sniff" a guy like that out on a consistent basis? I doubt it.

[Mothman]

So 2010 was just a year where if you needed a QB no matter who you took you were pretty much screwed, and years like that happen.

Yes, they do and you don't want to need a QB when they come along. Bradford might be okay if he can just stay healthy.

So that gives you Newton as a solid QB, Dalton being average, and Kaepernick as a guy with a lot of risk attached to him. Unfortunately for speilman, QB sucked this year as well when we pretty much -had- to take one. Not sure Dalton looks all that good when he can't target AJ Green 170 times. (3rd most in the league, 174 is #1)

LOL! I'm not sure he'd look that good without Green either. He landed in a good spot.

So basically, in recent years most of the QB's have just been terrible. Especially the ones out side of the #1 pick. (luck, newton, etc)

I think a lot of that has to do with what sort of situation they land in and a lot of it also has to do with the fact that most young QBs still need time to develop. You can throw some of them into the deep end of the pool right away and they swim pretty well. There have been an unusual number of QBs like that in recent years but even they go through some growing pains. Most of the QBs you listed will probably never amount to anything as pros but some of the QBs who are off to rough starts may prove to be good players down the line.

This upcoming draft I see one guy, Bridgewater who has an alright shot to be a good QB in this league. The rest of them look like that 2010 year with Tebow, claussen, and colt mccoy all failing miserably. So that just makes it even harder, is there a russel wilson in the 3rd round you can find? Is there anyone qualified to "sniff" a guy like that out on a consistent basis? I doubt it.

I think you evaluate them, draft the one you think can succeed and then play once you feel he's ready, and when you feel you've created a situation he can step into and be successful, you play him. Some might call that coddling but I think it just serves the player well to acclimate him to the pros a little slowly, especially if he's not a top level, pro-ready prospect in the first place. My guess is if a team drafts Bridgewater and starts him immediately, he's going to play some pretty uneven football for a year or two.

Good post, Mondry (and thanks for putting those lists together).