Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Blowing it up and rebuilding this roster was the right thing to do when the Wilfs decided to clean house with the front office and coaching staff. I'd bet anything Poles wouldn't agree to the "rolling rebuild" and had a vision on how he wanted to do it, and elected to take the Bears job because he'd have total control to blow it up and rebuild it how he wanted to..
You will not have two better examples of the two different philosophies then the Bears and Vikings, who have taken different approaches. Nice thing is we are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and will get a first hand look over the next few years on which philosophy turns out being more prosperous.
I dont think that will be a very good indicator of what philosophy is a better practice because things like draft pick success, and just plain ol luck have to factor in. Not to mention the quality of the roster that they were able to start with.
That's all part of the process. Setting yourself up for more things like hitting on draft picks, luck, and allotting cap dollars wisely in free agency. The Bears elected to take the blow it up philosophy under Poles while the Vikings elected for the rolling rebuild, I'm sure at the behaste of the Wilfs when they elected to make wholesale changes. It will be an interesting case study between the two philosophies and we don't have to look outside the division to see which team made the wiser rebuild model
I think you're exactly right.
I think the numbers can be misleading, what provides the bigger picture are the number of starters or even more specific the key contributors who have been overhaul. If you look at the Viking offense the main core has been pretty consistent for years. The depth where you would expect changes has been extensive and on the defensive side of the ball there has been a lot of changes, but that hasn't really made a difference as they have been swapping out not so great players for other not so great players. To me it has been pretty much the same team during that time span.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Blowing it up and rebuilding this roster was the right thing to do when the Wilfs decided to clean house with the front office and coaching staff. I'd bet anything Poles wouldn't agree to the "rolling rebuild" and had a vision on how he wanted to do it, and elected to take the Bears job because he'd have total control to blow it up and rebuild it how he wanted to..
You will not have two better examples of the two different philosophies then the Bears and Vikings, who have taken different approaches. Nice thing is we are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and will get a first hand look over the next few years on which philosophy turns out being more prosperous.
I dont think that will be a very good indicator of what philosophy is a better practice because things like draft pick success, and just plain ol luck have to factor in. Not to mention the quality of the roster that they were able to start with.
That's all part of the process. Setting yourself up for more things like hitting on draft picks, luck, and allotting cap dollars wisely in free agency. The Bears elected to take the blow it up philosophy under Poles while the Vikings elected for the rolling rebuild, I'm sure at the behaste of the Wilfs when they elected to make wholesale changes. It will be an interesting case study between the two philosophies and we don't have to look outside the division to see which team made the wiser rebuild model
you still have to factor in the quality and age of the rosters they had to start with, and just because you have 2 side by side teams that are in the same division doesnt prove or disprove your point, you still have to factor the use and quality of the draft picks used after the path was chosen, just because somebody chooses the better path, but makes poor decisions along that path, doesnt mean that it wasnt the better path, maybe it was just poor leadership/decision making after the path was chosen.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
It's the rolling rebuild. Here's an article that argues that this is the exact wrong thing to do, that the Vikings should have made a bigger commitment to either winning or rebuilding. I think a handful of Viking fans would agree with this.
But again, I'd love to see a recent example of a team who tore it up, drafted a young QB, rebuilt around him and won a Super Bowl. I mean if this is the path to all glory, you would think there would be several examples of it working. Not sure there's even one.
Wouldn't Indy with Peyton be an example? But they did it right, built the O-Line, drafted the QB and he had the pieces to be successful.
Yes. And when I looked it over a couple weeks ago, that was the only example that I could find. It was 25 years ago.
And it's not a perfect example either, since it was 9 years between drafting their QBOTF and winning a Super Bowl. A couple, three more cap cycles over that time I'm sure. For perspective, that's like the Vikings winning the Super Bowl next season because we drafted Teddy in 2014. Manning was already over 30.
Crap, thanks for making me feel old.
Quote: @JR44 said:
I think the numbers can be misleading, what provides the bigger picture are the number of starters or even more specific the key contributors who have been overhaul. If you look at the Viking offense the main core has been pretty consistent for years. The depth where you would expect changes has been extensive and on the defensive side of the ball there has been a lot of changes, but that hasn't really made a difference as they have been swapping out not so great players for other not so great players. To me it has been pretty much the same team during that time span.
I totally agree that it’s not exactly meaningful
if your low snap guys are getting replaced, but it’s hugely important if your
HOF caliber starter is being replaced by a guy who sucks. I think at the very least, you’d want the
metric to at least put a priority on your starters. I think they could probably get a pretty good
approximation by going with something like “Percentage of Snaps Returned” where
you add up all the snaps taken by someone on your team last year vs those not
on your team last year. I think they
could do even better if they added something into the metric regarding the
quality of the player. I’m not sure what
that would look like though. I think you’d
want something like (Average PFF grade of guys acquired – average PFF grade of
guys lost)*the percentage of new to team players. I think there’s got to be some sort of way of
breaking it down by the individual player and calculating a singular result out
of it.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Blowing it up and rebuilding this roster was the right thing to do when the Wilfs decided to clean house with the front office and coaching staff. I'd bet anything Poles wouldn't agree to the "rolling rebuild" and had a vision on how he wanted to do it, and elected to take the Bears job because he'd have total control to blow it up and rebuild it how he wanted to..
You will not have two better examples of the two different philosophies then the Bears and Vikings, who have taken different approaches. Nice thing is we are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and will get a first hand look over the next few years on which philosophy turns out being more prosperous.
I dont think that will be a very good indicator of what philosophy is a better practice because things like draft pick success, and just plain ol luck have to factor in. Not to mention the quality of the roster that they were able to start with.
That's all part of the process. Setting yourself up for more things like hitting on draft picks, luck, and allotting cap dollars wisely in free agency. The Bears elected to take the blow it up philosophy under Poles while the Vikings elected for the rolling rebuild, I'm sure at the behaste of the Wilfs when they elected to make wholesale changes. It will be an interesting case study between the two philosophies and we don't have to look outside the division to see which team made the wiser rebuild model
you still have to factor in the quality and age of the rosters they had to start with, and just because you have 2 side by side teams that are in the same division doesnt prove or disprove your point, you still have to factor the use and quality of the draft picks used after the path was chosen, just because somebody chooses the better path, but makes poor decisions along that path, doesnt mean that it wasnt the better path, maybe it was just poor leadership/decision making after the path was chosen.
I just don't think it needs to be that complicated. One team chose one path while the other team chose another in trying to become an upper echelon Super Bowl contender. Let's see how it all shakes out in a couple years. I contend the Bears model was the better way of going about resetting the roster and building a contender. Of course they have to hit on the resources afforded to them in the roster teardown but I still contend its the better model and they are allowing their GM to build the team in his vision and do the job he was hired to do. I don't think anybody knows what the Vikings long term plans are including the Vikikgs themselves
Everyone wants a simple answer to a complicated situation. My opinion is you make the best choice, that has the highest probability of success, with the information you have at the time. When it works out, hindsight usually tells another story.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Blowing it up and rebuilding this roster was the right thing to do when the Wilfs decided to clean house with the front office and coaching staff. I'd bet anything Poles wouldn't agree to the "rolling rebuild" and had a vision on how he wanted to do it, and elected to take the Bears job because he'd have total control to blow it up and rebuild it how he wanted to..
You will not have two better examples of the two different philosophies then the Bears and Vikings, who have taken different approaches. Nice thing is we are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and will get a first hand look over the next few years on which philosophy turns out being more prosperous.
I dont think that will be a very good indicator of what philosophy is a better practice because things like draft pick success, and just plain ol luck have to factor in. Not to mention the quality of the roster that they were able to start with.
That's all part of the process. Setting yourself up for more things like hitting on draft picks, luck, and allotting cap dollars wisely in free agency. The Bears elected to take the blow it up philosophy under Poles while the Vikings elected for the rolling rebuild, I'm sure at the behaste of the Wilfs when they elected to make wholesale changes. It will be an interesting case study between the two philosophies and we don't have to look outside the division to see which team made the wiser rebuild model
you still have to factor in the quality and age of the rosters they had to start with, and just because you have 2 side by side teams that are in the same division doesnt prove or disprove your point, you still have to factor the use and quality of the draft picks used after the path was chosen, just because somebody chooses the better path, but makes poor decisions along that path, doesnt mean that it wasnt the better path, maybe it was just poor leadership/decision making after the path was chosen.
I just don't think it needs to be that complicated. One team chose one path while the other team chose another in trying to become an upper echelon Super Bowl contender. Let's see how it all shakes out in a couple years. I contend the Bears model was the better way of going about resetting the roster and building a contender. Of course they have to hit on the resources afforded to them in the roster teardown but I still contend its the better model and they are allowing their GM to build the team in his vision and do the job he was hired to do. I don't think anybody knows what the Vikings long term plans are including the Vikikgs themselves
But you can't compare apples to oranges. Vikings and Bears were in two totally different places when each team made the decisions they did. What made sense for the Bears did not make sense for the Vikings and vice versa.
When Poles was hired, the Bears had a winning record just once in the last 10 years. There was nobody on that team but Roquan Smith, whom they promptly traded. Their offensive line was a disaster. They had no weapons and no defense. They had just drafted a rookie QB whom they knew was going to require at least a couple years of development. A tear it up approach made sense for them.
The Vikings, on the other hand, had a decent mix of young and veteran talent on both sides of the ball…. Kirk Cousins, Justin Jefferson, Dalvin Cook, Christian Darrisaw, Brian O’Neill, Thielen, Harry, Barr, Kendricks, Hunter, P2….a complete tear down of a team like that would've been idiotic.
Instead, they identified veterans whose performance no longer matched their contracts and removed them. Barr, Pierce, Richardson. And the following year removed several more in Peterson, Thielen, Cook and Kendricks, while adding young talent thru trades, free agency and the draft. The LB room is now completely changed out, as is the CB room and the TE room.
Next year I suspect Harry will be gone and maybe even Cousins, completely changing out two more position units. Either way, the Vikings have purposefully added very little to the 2024 bottom line, and will have a ridiculous amount of cap space to add talent where it's needed.
This is what a rolling rebuild looks like. You're going to wake up two years from now and the Vikings will have completely rebuilt their roster while you're still asking to see the plan.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Blowing it up and rebuilding this roster was the right thing to do when the Wilfs decided to clean house with the front office and coaching staff. I'd bet anything Poles wouldn't agree to the "rolling rebuild" and had a vision on how he wanted to do it, and elected to take the Bears job because he'd have total control to blow it up and rebuild it how he wanted to..
You will not have two better examples of the two different philosophies then the Bears and Vikings, who have taken different approaches. Nice thing is we are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and will get a first hand look over the next few years on which philosophy turns out being more prosperous.
I dont think that will be a very good indicator of what philosophy is a better practice because things like draft pick success, and just plain ol luck have to factor in. Not to mention the quality of the roster that they were able to start with.
That's all part of the process. Setting yourself up for more things like hitting on draft picks, luck, and allotting cap dollars wisely in free agency. The Bears elected to take the blow it up philosophy under Poles while the Vikings elected for the rolling rebuild, I'm sure at the behaste of the Wilfs when they elected to make wholesale changes. It will be an interesting case study between the two philosophies and we don't have to look outside the division to see which team made the wiser rebuild model
you still have to factor in the quality and age of the rosters they had to start with, and just because you have 2 side by side teams that are in the same division doesnt prove or disprove your point, you still have to factor the use and quality of the draft picks used after the path was chosen, just because somebody chooses the better path, but makes poor decisions along that path, doesnt mean that it wasnt the better path, maybe it was just poor leadership/decision making after the path was chosen.
I just don't think it needs to be that complicated. One team chose one path while the other team chose another in trying to become an upper echelon Super Bowl contender. Let's see how it all shakes out in a couple years. I contend the Bears model was the better way of going about resetting the roster and building a contender. Of course they have to hit on the resources afforded to them in the roster teardown but I still contend its the better model and they are allowing their GM to build the team in his vision and do the job he was hired to do. I don't think anybody knows what the Vikings long term plans are including the Vikikgs themselves
But you can't compare apples to oranges. Vikings and Bears were in two totally different places when each team made the decisions they did. What made sense for the Bears did not make sense for the Vikings and vice versa.
When Poles was hired, the Bears had a winning record just once in the last 10 years. There was nobody on that team but Roquan Smith, whom they promptly traded. Their offensive line was a disaster. They had no weapons and no defense. They had just drafted a rookie QB whom they knew was going to require at least a couple years of development. A tear it up approach made sense for them.
The Vikings, on the other hand, had a decent mix of young and veteran talent on both sides of the ball…. Kirk Cousins, Justin Jefferson, Dalvin Cook, Christian Darrisaw, Brian O’Neill, Thielen, Harry, Barr, Kendricks, Hunter, P2….a complete tear down of a team like that would've been idiotic.
Instead, they identified veterans whose performance no longer matched their contracts and removed them. Barr, Pierce, Richardson. And the following year removed several more in Peterson, Thielen, Cook and Kendricks, while adding young talent thru trades, free agency and the draft. The LB room is now completely changed out, as is the CB room and the TE room.
Next year I suspect Harry will be gone and maybe even Cousins, completely changing out two more position units. Either way, the Vikings have purposefully added very little to the 2024 bottom line, and will have a ridiculous amount of cap space to add talent where it's needed.
This is what a rolling rebuild looks like. You're going to wake up two years from now and the Vikings will have completely rebuilt their roster while you're still asking to see the plan.
It was apples to apples when you have two franchises bring in completely new front offices and coaching staffs, of which both teams did. You have two choices....blow it up or try to stay afloat with what you have in place. The Bears elected to blow it up while the Vikings elected to stay afloat. The Bears moved players for draft picks and cap space, while parlaying the top overall pick from the rebuild season into future draft assets. They used cap space (had the most monet to spend) to bring in impact players in free agency. The Vikings elected to retain Kirk Cousins, who has gotten us no closer to winning a Super Bowl, when we could have moved him for draft picks and cap relief when the new front office was put in place. We have been shuffling and playing the shell game with the salary cap for two years while signing mostly mid-tier vets on 1 year contracts. So yeah, let's see in two years which team is better positioned to be Super Bowl contenders
New Regime Scorecard
Vikings division titles: 1
Bears division titles: 0
for those keeping score at home… 
|
