PFT ranked the Vikings at the #29 team in the NFL going into the 2012 season. How embarrassing, and sadly I mostly agree.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/10/preseason-power-rankings-no-2-minnesota-vikings/

i also agree but am far from embarrassed. why would i be? anyone paying attention knew that for about 3 years (including last) that we would be rebuilding and wouldn't be very good. almost all teams go through the same thing. and frankly....preseason rankings me absolutely nothing....

Nothing to cry about. They will be a much better team this year than last.

The good news to me is that the questions for the Vikings are becoming more forcused on a few areas vs. many. All of that could change with a carreer ending injury to someone or certain high value prospects crapping out, but such is the NFL, but right now, things seem to be progressing nicely.

IMO the two biggest questions are can Ponder develop and can Frasier and co. actually coach? (We've seen them make mistakes and deal with adversity, now will we see them win?) There are certainly other big questions, like whether the OL changes willl pan out, will some of the WR talent develop, and how things will go in the secondary.

OL seems to be on the right path as does WR, although I think we should have cautious optimism about WR. Young WR typically take 2-3 seasons to really turn it on.

The secondary is a tale of two cities IMO. At CB you have the wiley verteran in Winfield who is a proven commodity. You have Cook who has a chip on his shoulder with somethign to prove. (great recent article on this by Seifert: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... ay-forward). Behind these two is promising rookie Josh Robinson and then a sea of backups. I think Asher Allen retiring will sting, he was showing promise. Chris Cook is IMO a defining moment for Frasier as a coach. I thought, the situation was handled well last year, I agree with Siefert's take. Now the question is if they can provide Cook with the environment and leadership he needs to become the all star player he is capable of being.

Safety is an entirely different mess. Raymond is a late round guy showing flashes. Smith is 1st round talent, but a rookie. Behind them is, frankly, a mess. This is where I put it on the coaching staff. Can they develop these guys fast enough (or at all?) to have an impact.

Never a dull moment with our Vikings. I'm looking forward to the 2012 campaign, I think the Vikes will not be in the bottom 3 at year end.

That's part of it but I think the responsibility lies primarily with Cook. He has to take his game to another level and stay out of trouble.



Again, I think it has more to do with the players than the coaches. A coach can't be an alchemist and turn lead into gold. If those players are going to have a positive impact quickly, they need good coaching but they also have to put in the work. Then there's the question of talent: how many of the safeties on the Vikings roster have the talent to truly excel in the NFL? Unfortunately, there may only be 1 or 2 with that kind of ability.

Everybody from the GM down has a lot to prove over the next few seasons. I agree with you that the Vikes won't finish in the bottom 3 this season. i thin they'll be better than that and although I don't expect miracles from Frazier and his staff, I do think they'll be able to field a better, more competitive team over 16 games than the team we saw last year.

"Promising rookie"??? He's a third round draft pick who hasn't even put on pads yet.

Is there some reason a third round rookie can't be promising?

Robinson impressed scouts at the combine with some of the best performances at his position (he was one of the fastest players at the combine) and scouting reports say he has impressive zone coverage skills. There were some analysts who thought he could go in the first round. I have no idea if he will live up to his potential but it's not a stretch to say a productive college corner who was one of the most athletic players in the draft has promise.

"Hopeful" is not the same as "promising".

At this point in his career there is no way that he's had any opportunity to show promise. If he had such a great showing at the combine, then why didn't he get drafted until the third round? Maybe it was his combine numbers that got him drafted as high as he did.

I'm as hopeful as anyone else that Robinson makes it, but at this point he's just another mid-round draft pick.

They're very similar so is it really worth nitpicking?

Promise is the quality of potential excellence.

Hope (in the sense you're using it here) is grounds for believing that something good may happen.

It's fair to say Robinson has the former quality and consequently, there are grounds for believing he can be a good player.



Of course there is... what do you think determines when and why players are drafted? They're drafted based on their performance in college and at the combine, on their athletic achievements and their potential. Based on the definition you appear to be pushing, no rookie shows promise right now because none of them have played in the NFL yet. I assume you aren't taking that position, correct? Would you say Matt Kalil and Andrew Luck don't show any promise either because they haven't had an opportunity to do so? They're both going to be guaranteed millions based on nothing but promise.



There could be a number of reasons: He played for a smaller school. His skill set is a much better fit for zone coverage than man-to-man coverage (perhaps ruling him out as an R1 or R2 choice for teams that focus on the latter). He's short by NFL standards. There were lots of other good players available too and they can't all get picked. Players with higher grades fall into the third round every year. Maybe some of the teams that had Robinson on their board as a potential first or second round pick simply passed on him because players they had ranked higher were still available when their picks came up.

[/quote]

Yes, but he's a third round pick with promise.

He's promising because he's our third round draft pick!

Mostly, people call a second or third day pick "promising" because experts were really high on that player and "couldn't figure out why he dropped" to that spot.

Hopeful is something you feel about a player who is coming back from a serious injury, or was a total out of the blue type pick. For example, people can be "hopeful" that the "promising" rookie Greg Childs recovers fully from his injuries and becomes a capable wide receiver. The two terms don't really compare like people think they do.

That said, I can see why people would consider Josh Robinson promising. I didn't watch a whole lot of the combine, but by some freak accident I managed to watch the part where the DBs were running (was at a bar at the right time, and managed to have a seat directly facing the screen). I saw the guy run. It was pretty awesome to watch a guy break 4.3. Speed isn't maybe the only requirement to play the position, but it sure does help to be faster than 90% of the wide receivers you're up against. If it isn't promising to be the fastest guy at the combine, then I don't know what promise is at all then.

With the general parity in the NFL, this is pretty much a crapshoot every year. There are about 6 teams that you can safely say are going to be among the top 10, but after that there's a lot of "well, this team wasn't THAT bad this year" and "well, I don't know if they could get that much better in one offseason". What they do to rank the teams after the top 6 or 7 is a whole lot of gut feelings based on what other experts are saying. I remember they would repeatedly pick Washington to be a top 10 team for years, only to have them sink right to the bottom repeatedly...and that goes for many other teams. I wouldn't pay it much attention.

IMO the most honest way to say it would be the team with an elite QB that suffers the fewest injuries will most likely be the SB winner.

As far as Robinson: Promising, Potential, Hopeful, whatever you want to call it. If he doesn't have promise or potential then he should have even been drafted, let alone in the 3rd round. So either you disagree with my assessment and you think our front office player eval is a total joke or he has promise. I never said he'd be the next Neon Deon.

Moth, I disagree, specifically on the secondary. Aside from Winfield you've got a bunch of 1st or 2nd year guys. Cook is a 3rd year guy with 1 season missed due to injuries and 1 season due to legal problems. IMO, that makes coaching absolutely critical less we see guys totally blow up their confidence. Also, the Cedric Griffen affair was handled terribly IMO. The end result was a total disaster in coverage and a player basically getting completely disenfranchised with the team to a point where he was running his own plays on defense. The coaches and young players all have somethign to prove this season.

I wasn't saying coaching isn't critical. I was simply saying the primary responsibility for a player's development and performance lies with the player. I think that's always the case. Coaching is a factor in success or failure, often a big one, but the player must have the work ethic, talent, desire, etc. to succeed and if they don't, no amount of coaching is going to make them successful.

To put it another way: I don't see Cook's situation as a defining moment for Leslie Frazier. I see it as a defining moment for Cook. I think the defining "moment" for Frazier will be the season itself, how he handles the entire team and whatever challenges and adversity they face.

I think it is defining for both of them. Cook is a guy who has all the talent you could ever want for this era of the NFL. He also has some serious baggage. Yes, he needs to take responsibility for himself and make the right choices/do the right things. However, the coachs can/do affect his situation, not just by play calling, but also, epsecialy with a guy like Cook, his morale and attitude.

The Coaches had a lot of choices when Cook hit legal armageddon last year. At that point he had only shown flashes. They choose to stand by him. Now it is time to see if they made the right choice and can put this man in a position to succeed. If he fails it begs questions about the rest of our talent and whether or not it is being managed properly. For that reason, especially with a young and rebuilding team, I think Cook is a great situation to watch. If they can get him right, there is plenty of reason to think they can do well with rest of the Roster.

Ponder is in a similar boat and probably even more important because he plays QB. However, they might do everything right with Ponder and he might just not be up to the task. With Cook we know he is up to it, so IMO, it is better measuring stick.

Just little details when there is nothign else to talk about for a few more weeks.

First, I totally agree with what you're saying about player development. To take a line from the Matrix, the coach can show them the door, but the player is the one who has to walk through it. Cook has potential and Frazier knows the defensive secondary, but for that to pay off Cook has to want to work and stay out of trouble.

With that said, I expect the Vikings secondary to absolutely stink this year. While it's remotely possible that things could improve, and given how historically bad they were last year that would be a reasonable expectation in most circumstances, I don't see that happening this year. The only vet they have worth anything is Winfield, while the rest are all either young, developmental prospects, or both. And in the division the Vikings play in that level of inexperience is going to cost them bigtime. I expect they will set the all-time record for futility by a secondary.

On the bright side of that, the baptism-by-fire should separate the men from the boys, and while they will get shredded repeatedly, what they'll see this year is the worst they'll probably see their entire careers. For the ones who make it, they'll know exactly what they need to do to improve their games, and the experience should pay off nicely down the road. The best the Vikes can hope for from this secondary group heading into next season is that the majority of them will indeed make it through and be better for the experience and for subsequent seasons.

Frazier has his work cut out for him. From where I sit, if most of these guys look like they might pan out heading into next season, he did a great job regardless of what the final record says.

Last year sucked... after Winfield and Cook were not playing. As the Siefert article I quoted suggests, when Cook was on the field they were on their way to a top 10 pass defense ranking. Behind these two are Robinson and Carr. There is no guarrantee that this unit will be a bunch of studs, but to compare to last year is I think unfair: None of the first 4 CB on the depth chart were on the field when our secondary went belly up, 2 were not even on the team.

Safety is certainly more uncertain, but the only guy who will be starting from that dismal unit is Mistral Raymond who showed flashes in a terrible sitaution. Smith is unproven for sure, but has 1st round talent. Also, I think having competent CB play will help these guys. They won't have to deal with disgruntled Cedric Griffen calling his own scheme.

I get what you are saying, we face 3 of the top 10-15QB in the league in our conference. They are going to be tested and there WILL be growing pains. I'm just pointing out that the situation from Week 17 in 2011 to now is most likely a significant imrpovement. Mostly because the bottom was set so terribly low.

I agree that if they can "get it right' with Cook that would be an encouraging sign. Where I disagree is that if Cook fails it automatically raises questions about the rest of the Vikings talent and if it's being managed properly. If he fails, I think we'd have to take a good look at how and why before placing responsibility. Coaches have to put players in position to succeed and they have to give them the tools to succeed but they can't make it happen. The player has to do that. Sometimes, a coach can do everything right with a player and it still doesn't work out, which is basically what you said below in regard to Ponder...



I'm a little confused. How do we know Cook is up to the task? I guess I'm not clear on what you're saying anymore. Both Ponder and Cook have shown flashes of big time ability and have had good performances. We know they both have talent but neither player has proven they are legitimate long term starters or impact players yet. Cook has shown a little more at this point but I don't think he's shown so much that if he flames out we can just say, "It must be the coaching because we know he can play".

I doubt that but i won't deny that it's a possibility. I have no doubt they will have some tough games and pay for their inexperience but I don't think they're going to go down as the all-time worst secondary in NFL history unless they get slammed with injuries.



That seems like a healthy attitude.

If the players continue to underperform, the finger definitely should be pointed towards the coaching staff and Spielman. If we were talking about one or two players, or late draftees, then I could understand but we've had our fair share of high picks for our secondary.

Smith (1st round), Johnson (2nd), Cook (2nd), Robinson (3rd), Allen (3rd), McCauley (3rd), etc....

You simply cannot have that many high picks fail and NOT look at the staff as part of the problem. Obviously, we're not there yet with guys like Smith and Robinson having yet to put on pads, but putting the onus on the players if there's a clear pattern of underperformance from that many players? I'm sorry, at that point, it's the teacher not the student. Time will tell, but I think the staff can no longer hide behind the "we haven't had the talent" excuse anymore.

... nor with Cook, who's looked pretty good on the field (and his off-field problems can hardly be blamed on the coaches).



Let's see if that clear pattern of underperformance even develops before we worry about blaming the coaches for it.

By the way, Allen and McCauley were third round picks. That doesn't exactly make them "can't miss" players. Sure, teams can find quality starters in that round but if you look over past drafts, I think you'll find that DBs chosen in the third round don't have a remarkably high success rate. Heck, what's the success rate for DBs chosen in the first round? 50% 60% I don't know but I doubt it's much higher than that. It's easy to forget that a lot of players, even first round draft picks, just aren't able to translate college success into NFL success.

Jim

There already is massive underperformance. A secondary that set 40+ year old records (and not the good kind). The major argument being lack of personnel. Well, now that's been addressed at least to some degree.



A team can't build around 1st and 2nd rounders. You need middle round types to contribute. We're not talking about an expectation for elite players here but you need guys to contribute.

Like I said, I'm not making any judgements at this point. However, the excuse for the last few years for an absolute atrocious secondary has been lack of personnel. At some point, if that doesn't turn around, DESPITE a very concerted effort to get high round picks in the secondary, the focus needs to turn to the staff (notice I use the word staff, as in not just our coaches but also our GM).

While agree with the take that there are a lot of players who fail to make the transition drafted in the 3rd or even higher and I think some can get a little overboard on the criticism of the FO and coaches for one or two missed picks. However, it is their jobs to draft well and make the right decisions, so while one or two failed picks can be forgiven, when you start developing a pattern of failed picks, the argument that there are a lot of failed 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders picks no longer holds any merit.

I wouldn't say we have a pattern just yet for failed DBs in top rounds of the draft, but McCauley, Allen and Tyrell were clearly failures, so we really can't afford for Cook/Smith/Robinson to fail, or I would say that it is a pattern. You can only miss so many times high in the draft at a certain position before blame needs to be placed on the coaches/GM rather than the players themselves.

Poor performance isn't necessarily underperformance and talent/personnel problems aren't necessarily indicative of coaching problems. 2 of the players you listed haven't even played yet and one of them (Cook) certainly hasn't underperformed when he's been on the field.



No kidding... but that's a different point (and Allen did contribute). The point I was making is when a couple of third round DBs don't turn out to be that good, it isn't necessarily indicative of a coaching issue. It could simply mean they weren't that good.



Do you dispute that? At what point is an excuse a legitimate reason? The Vikes have had some significant injuries in their secondary over the last few years and their depth proved inadequate. That strikes me as a reality, not just an excuse to justify poor performance.



I agree. All I'm saying is WAIT to see what happens and then analyze that rather than saying in advance that IF the secondary fails over the next few years, we should assume the staff is the problem.

Of course. I'm not saying the coaches and GM should be above scrutiny or that they shouldn't bear some responsibility. My entire posting history on this board should make it pretty clear that I feel the opposite. Coaching matters. Personnel evaluation and development matters. However, the players play the games. They have more to do with their success or failure than anybody else. That should always be the first place a team looks when there's a problem with a player's performance, then on up the ranks.

Anyway, I suggest we move on from this line of discussion. I don't want to keep debating about who will be responsible for failures that have yet to occur (and hopefully won't occur). It seems silly and overly cynical.

The teams I think are worse than us

Colts, Jags, Rams,Browns The teams we are close to Raiders, Cardinals, Tampa, Seattle

so i say we are between 28- and 24 right now depending on how training camp goes

and schedule we could be a middle of the road team next year easily.

maybe the vikings will be one of the new 5 teams in the playoffs this season.
the cb's don't have to be great man to man cover players, but they have to be guys who can tackle which worries me. The strong safety is expected to be a hard hitter. we wont compete in the north with cutler, stafford, and rodgers if the secondary doesnt step up.

The coaches have developed some of their guys. Allen was showing signs of being a very capable nickel/back up guy. Then he retired.

Griffen was really showing qaulity talent until back to back knee injuries ruined his career. Nice of Daniel Snyder to give him an extra severance package.

Abdullah was showing signs in the eyes of the coaches but had multiple concussions and then chose religion over football.

None of these guys were huge playmakers, but they were solid roleplayers which is what you generally expect from their draft position.

Whatever though. For me it is all about what this season holds. I contend that if Cook and Winfield can return to early 2011 form minus the injuries/legal problems then our Secondary will be markedly improved. People seem to forget that concentration of injuries in the seconardy is partially culpable for the disaster in 2011.

I like Seattle. Defense is pretty underrated and something has got to give at QB. Flynn will probably be the starter and be serviceable and better than Tavaris.