Moderator: Moderators
I just had to acknowledge this because I'll be hitting that same anniversary and I know we're not alone I sure hope we get a Super Bowl win before that 50 year mark comes and goes.J. Kapp 11 wrote:Look, nobody wants a championship more than I do. In 3 years, I'll hit 50 years as a Vikings fan.
I said that because you seemed to take Jim's criticism of Zimmer as a vote of no support rather than just a criticism. I should have just let Jim, explain it before I jumped in. Sorry for that.Pondering Her Percy wrote: Doubt my comprehension? How so? I can say now that both you and mothman took me saying "great" way out of context. I'm not saying he's the next Vince Lombardi. So sorrry that I worded that wrong. However I will say he's a good coach. I haven't heard anything regarding him not being offensive minded. That goes for any defensive coach. I've heard that he was too straight forward and says it how it is. That supposedly pushed people away
J. Kapp 11 wrote:So that's the only measuring stick? By that logic, Bud Grant, a Hall-of-Famer, wasn't a great head coach. Really?
[/quote]J. Kapp 11 wrote: Look, nobody wants a championship more than I do. In 3 years, I'll hit 50 years as a Vikings fan. This sucks. The free-fall after the 5-0 start? Sucks. The loss in '98? Sucks. '09? Sucks. The 4 Super Bowl losses? I watched them all, and they all sucked. But if the only standard for coaching excellence is a championship, then every coach the Vikings have ever had is a failure. The truth is that every Vikings coach since Bud Grant has led his team to the playoffs at least once except for Les Steckel. We've had some good coaches here, and some good teams.
I just don't think it's fair to place every Vikings coach on the same level. Brad Childress isn't on the same level as Grant. Neither are Tice or Frazier. They're just not. But none of those is on the same level as Les Steckel. That would be just as unfair.
Where will Zimmer end up? There's no way of knowing, but for now, he has a winning record and a division championship in 2+ seasons. Childress had two division titles in four years, but the players all wanted to dump him in Lake Minnetonka wearing a concrete ankle bracelet. The players will run through a wall for Zimmer, so it's a good bet he's not going anywhere anytime soon. Maybe we all ought to settle back and let this play out before we either crown him OR declare him a bust.
It isn't just the wait either. It's also the losses. This franchise lost a superbowl while fielding at team that had the #1 offense and #1 defense. The 98 team with the most potent offense....blah blah blah, you know what i'm saying....Mothman wrote: I just had to acknowledge this because I'll be hitting that same anniversary and I know we're not alone I sure hope we get a Super Bowl win before that 50 year mark comes and goes.
For any fans here who think I sound increasingly impatient, Kapp's comment above explains why. It's been a long wait.
I am tending to agree about Shurmur and next season... but I abhor the idea of yet another offensive system being installed.Mothman wrote: I hope he can. As I said above, it may be a question of pairing him with the right offensive minds. I'm not convinced Shurmur would be the best choice as the next OC so I hope his "field promotion" doesn't automatically translate to getting the OC job next season. Maybe he'll be the best candidate for it but I'd like to see them consider their options.
You're absolutely right that winning a championship with a "high-school offense" (I laughed at that one) is a very tall order. That's taking the extra hard road and winning in the NFL seems hard enough already.
The upcoming offseason will present a lot of opportunity for change. Let's see where this goes.
Meanwhile, this season isn't over just yet so let's see where that goes too!
Yeah, we all saw that "second-half shell" against Arizona. The team moved the ball really well in the first half and got a bonus from the defense with Rhodes' big return. Arizona had almost a 2-1 advantage in time of possession, but the Vikings had 20 points and the lead.Mothman wrote: All very good points, Kapp. As a subset of your first point, I think part of getting the offense figured out needs to involve a shift in philosophy. As Craig mentioned above, the offense has shown a tendency to play conservatively even when healthy. There's a real tendency to settle for FGs and to quickly go into a shell with a second half lead. It seems Zimmer prefers to get a lead and then hang onto the ball and count on his defense to close out the game. It's a strategy that gets him into trouble.
Yes, I do. It hasn't just been a long wait. It's been a particularly painful wait!Nunin wrote:It isn't just the wait either. It's also the losses. This franchise lost a superbowl while fielding at team that had the #1 offense and #1 defense. The 98 team with the most potent offense....blah blah blah, you know what i'm saying....
I agree with the philosophy, but the methodology of it is hard to apply to this particular offense. I would agree if the line could sustain a block long enough for Sam to hurl it down the field like that, but essentially, what's being asked, is that the Vikings throw away a play that has a high probability of a sack or failure in general, in order to make the attempt at stretching the defense. It seemed to work in weeks 2-5, in spots, but the regression up front is real here...I know everyone loves to nitpick and offer opinions of the playcalling, but in reality, you only need to average 3.4 yards per play in order to get a first down. Chunk yardage would be nice, but when a lot of those attempts end with chunks of negative yardage, it digs the hole even deeper. Playing it safe is a tiresome objective and one that requires efficiency, but given how this team is built, it's almost essential that the defense is relied upon...because that's how Zimmer wanted it, right? Whether he and Spielman knew the repercussions of that or not is almost irrelevant at this very point...The Vikings need to be meticulous in how they handle the offense or a lot of these games get away from them quickly. And honestly, without much of a running game, it's hard to accept the idea that the Vikings try and keep a defense honest when everyone in the country knows they cannot run the football.Purple Reign wrote: The point is you have to keep the defense honest. If you never throw a deep ball, then they aren't going to worry about a deep pass and sit on the short throws. You don't even have to complete the pass, just the fact you attempt a couple keeps them somewhat honest. Just like if you don't have a running game you still have to run it a few times.
There's not much reason for unpredictable mechanics if the goal on almost every play is to get rid of the ball very quickly. The former interferes with the latter goal.Trkn10 wrote:I don't know if it's habit, tendencies, mechanics, or poor play design, but the only time I have seen Bradford fake a body movement, or pump-fake was on the TD throw to Thielen in the first quarter of the game against Houston. His mechanics are so predictable and telegraphed that it gives the secondary little reason for guessing and blowing coverage. I think this, coupled with our s hit O-line translates into crappy conservative dink/dunks.
I wouldn't say this is much of an issue so long as they executed most of the time. "Most" almost means all of the time, given the small margin for error in an offense like that.Mothman wrote: There's not much reason for unpredictable mechanics if the goal on almost every play is to get rid of the ball very quickly. The former interferes with the latter goal.
The bad OL is definitely a factor but I suspect the biggest factor is Pat Shurmur, who's practically running a horizontal passing game. He's a well-known conservative, "dink and dunk" play caller. It's a complaint about him that goes back years. I suspect his ultra-conservative approach is just what Zimmer wants and it may be part of the philosophical difference of opinion the led to Turner's resignation.
I think everyone is pretty much in agreement about that. However, it doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try a couple of deep passes (try a moving pocket or max protect). Our running game is bad too but we don't completely abandon the run like we do the deep pass. A good example today was the Arizona/Atlanta game. Palmer wasn't getting any time all game either but they were still throwing passes more than 10 yards.The-Purple-Reign wrote:the horrible OL doesn't give enough time for deep routes to develop. Bradford has all of 1sec or two before he passes. Not enough time for receivers to run deep.
