View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him 
Author Message
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
But in order to do that, you have to guess at what he was and wasn't responsible for prior to 2012.


I disagree.

His role prior to 2012 is not mysterious. He ran the scouting department. He conducted the draft. As 1/3 of the "Triangle of Authority" he was supposed to work closely with the head coach to arrive at a consensus.

In other words, he was intimately involved in the decisions that led to how the team was built and managed.

Quote:
And it's so obvious that something changed drastically when that transition happened. Just look at the draft results.

2012-15, Good Players: Smith, Floyd, Rhodes, Barr, Waynes, Kendricks, Hunter, Diggs

2008-11, Good Players: Rudolph, Griffen, Loadholt, Sullivan


Spielman joined the team after the 2006 draft so the second part of that list should begin in 2007 and include the best draft pick he ever made, Adrian Peterson. Brian Robison was also drafted during that time. Harvin and Rice were good players as well, although we could make a distinction between good players and good picks that worked out well for the team over time.

Frankly, when I look closely at how the Vikes drafted from 2007-2011 and how they've drafted since, I don't see any drastic change or dramatic improvement over the past 5 years.


I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:27 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Banquo wrote:
I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


That seems a rather convenient and unnecessary distinction if the point was to compare the quality of the team's drafts under Spielman before and after he became GM.

The 2016 draft doesn't help your case much (at least at this point) and the 2007 draft clearly hurts it.

In some ways, trying to wipe the slate clean for the first 5 years Spielman spent with the Vikings actually hurts the case for him because his best pick and the team's only playoff win since hiring him occurred during that period. On top of that, the mental gymnastics involved in somehow writing off the 2011 draft, in particular, as something we can't attribute to Spielman because he wasn't GM are too much for me to accept. Does anyone really think Leslie Frazier was calling the shots in that draft?


Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:52 pm
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


That seems a rather convenient and unnecessary distinction if the point was to compare the quality of the team's drafts under Spielman before and after he became GM.

The 2016 draft doesn't help your case much (at least at this point) and the 2007 draft clearly hurts it.

In some ways, trying to wipe the slate clean for the first 5 years Spielman spent with the Vikings actually hurts the case for him because his best pick and the team's only playoff win since hiring him occurred during that period. On top of that, the mental gymnastics involved in somehow writing off the 2011 draft, in particular, as something we can't attribute to Spielman because he wasn't GM are too much for me to accept. Does anyone really think Leslie Frazier was calling the shots in that draft?


Lol. Are you accusing me of manipulating the results because I chose equal time spans? That's... odd.

Go back to 2006 then. 7 quality starters in 6 years. 8 since in 4 years, not including Teddy and also considering that Kalil was a great rookie sabotaged by knee injuries. I'll leave the math to you.

Anyone who wants to declare victory or defeat on 2016 when we aren't even through one season is on a fool's errand.


Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:21 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Banquo wrote:
Lol. Are you accusing me of manipulating the results because I chose equal time spans? That's... odd.


The equality of the time spans isn't terribly relevant to your point and you could have had even time spans without excluding two seasons.

I'll leave it at that.


Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:56 pm
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Lol. Are you accusing me of manipulating the results because I chose equal time spans? That's... odd.


The equality of the time spans isn't terribly relevant to your point and you could have had even time spans without excluding two seasons.

I'll leave it at that.


That's rather paranoid, pal. We all have access to the same information... I'm not under the impression that I can cook the results and not have anyone find out about it.

Silly old me thought that since I was comparing total numbers of quality starters drafted, it would be fair to review equal spans of time.


Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:05 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Image


Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:33 pm
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Awesome point. I totally agree with you now.


Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:51 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6592
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


That seems a rather convenient and unnecessary distinction if the point was to compare the quality of the team's drafts under Spielman before and after he became GM.

The 2016 draft doesn't help your case much (at least at this point) and the 2007 draft clearly hurts it.

In some ways, trying to wipe the slate clean for the first 5 years Spielman spent with the Vikings actually hurts the case for him because his best pick and the team's only playoff win since hiring him occurred during that period. On top of that, the mental gymnastics involved in somehow writing off the 2011 draft, in particular, as something we can't attribute to Spielman because he wasn't GM are too much for me to accept. Does anyone really think Leslie Frazier was calling the shots in that draft?


My question is, how can anyone NOT believe Spielman was calling a majority of the shots in the 2011 draft? His paws are all over it. The narrative leading up to that draft was that Minnesota needed a QB. Spielman himself even stated this in the pre-draft process. The result? A reach for a QB. The next player picked? Kyle Rudolph. A player who Rick Spielman paid a handsome extension to in exchange for potential a few short years later. The only other player remaining from 2011 on the team? Brandon Fusco. Same thing as Kyle - a premature extension from Rick Spielman based on potential. Let's just say if those weren't true Spielman guys they probably wouldn't have received big-time early extensions (not to say they wouldn't have received extensions eventually).

I will still contend to this day that Minnesota panicked when Jake Locker went to Tennessee. Instead of staying 'true to the board' (something Rick Spielman preached significantly after the 2011 draft - interesting huh?), the first-time Vikings GM (i.e. Rick) panicked and reached for Ponder.

Rick obviously learned quite a bit from that draft. Minnesota could have traded down after Locker went (something we have seen Rick do when a 'target' is off the board). Minnesota could have tried to trade up for Locker (something we have seen Rick do for a QB even - Teddy). Finally, Minnesota could have stayed put and drafted based on the board (and no one can sit here and tell me that Ponder was the best player on the Vikings' board).

My point is the evidence points to Rick being in charge of that 2011 draft. It was a failure and a learning experience. Regardless, that draft did more to hinder the team than help it.

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:09 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
He has been a failure
The team is not consistently improving
The future is not laid out on a promising pass, its slipping lower

Time to move on and Upgrade the entire front office...period.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:04 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
chicagopurple wrote:
He has been a failure
The team is not consistently improving
The future is not laid out on a promising pass, its slipping lower

Time to move on and Upgrade the entire front office...period.


And maybe upgrade more than that!

Sorry, folks, but I'm in a bad mood today... :x


Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:43 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1606
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
So... How long until we take a hard look at at the defensive guru head coach who's hand built defense couldn't stop the Colts all game? He has had some #### games on defense this year, god awful ones. Not a lot but enough to make me question the pedigree a little.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:48 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
IrishViking wrote:
So... How long until we take a hard look at at the defensive guru head coach who's hand built defense couldn't stop the Colts all game? He has had some #### games on defense this year, god awful ones. Not a lot but enough to make me question the pedigree a little.


There's no time like the present.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:54 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


That seems a rather convenient and unnecessary distinction if the point was to compare the quality of the team's drafts under Spielman before and after he became GM.

The 2016 draft doesn't help your case much (at least at this point) and the 2007 draft clearly hurts it.

In some ways, trying to wipe the slate clean for the first 5 years Spielman spent with the Vikings actually hurts the case for him because his best pick and the team's only playoff win since hiring him occurred during that period. On top of that, the mental gymnastics involved in somehow writing off the 2011 draft, in particular, as something we can't attribute to Spielman because he wasn't GM are too much for me to accept. Does anyone really think Leslie Frazier was calling the shots in that draft?


My question is, how can anyone NOT believe Spielman was calling a majority of the shots in the 2011 draft? His paws are all over it. The narrative leading up to that draft was that Minnesota needed a QB. Spielman himself even stated this in the pre-draft process. The result? A reach for a QB. The next player picked? Kyle Rudolph. A player who Rick Spielman paid a handsome extension to in exchange for potential a few short years later. The only other player remaining from 2011 on the team? Brandon Fusco. Same thing as Kyle - a premature extension from Rick Spielman based on potential. Let's just say if those weren't true Spielman guys they probably wouldn't have received big-time early extensions (not to say they wouldn't have received extensions eventually).

I will still contend to this day that Minnesota panicked when Jake Locker went to Tennessee. Instead of staying 'true to the board' (something Rick Spielman preached significantly after the 2011 draft - interesting huh?), the first-time Vikings GM (i.e. Rick) panicked and reached for Ponder.

Rick obviously learned quite a bit from that draft. Minnesota could have traded down after Locker went (something we have seen Rick do when a 'target' is off the board). Minnesota could have tried to trade up for Locker (something we have seen Rick do for a QB even - Teddy). Finally, Minnesota could have stayed put and drafted based on the board (and no one can sit here and tell me that Ponder was the best player on the Vikings' board).

My point is the evidence points to Rick being in charge of that 2011 draft. It was a failure and a learning experience. Regardless, that draft did more to hinder the team than help it.


Excellent post, HardcoreVikesFan.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:01 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1606
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
IrishViking wrote:
So... How long until we take a hard look at at the defensive guru head coach who's hand built defense couldn't stop the Colts all game? He has had some #### games on defense this year, god awful ones. Not a lot but enough to make me question the pedigree a little.


There's no time like the present.


When you set aside Zimmer as Zimmer and just look at the "bullet points" as "generic HC" it honestly, is a seriously mixed bag.

25-21 with a playoff loss.
Oversaw the rise and slight drop of the defense.
OC quit on him halfway through 3rd year
Has HCd an utterly enemic Offense entire tenure
Has overseen dumpster fire at Online entire tenure
Defensive consistentcy has been unbalanced
Seems like a solid honest guy


He has shown skill at being in charge of a defense this is true. But he has shown to be utterly flumexed by offense and so far has had as much luck delegating duties for that part of the team as Spielman has had with drafting Olinemen

3 years two OCs two Oline coach's, three terrible offenses


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:04 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1606
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Banquo wrote:
I disagree heartily and believe the difference is quite clear. And obviously I just took a 4 year span because I was comparing it to a four year span.


That seems a rather convenient and unnecessary distinction if the point was to compare the quality of the team's drafts under Spielman before and after he became GM.

The 2016 draft doesn't help your case much (at least at this point) and the 2007 draft clearly hurts it.

In some ways, trying to wipe the slate clean for the first 5 years Spielman spent with the Vikings actually hurts the case for him because his best pick and the team's only playoff win since hiring him occurred during that period. On top of that, the mental gymnastics involved in somehow writing off the 2011 draft, in particular, as something we can't attribute to Spielman because he wasn't GM are too much for me to accept. Does anyone really think Leslie Frazier was calling the shots in that draft?


My question is, how can anyone NOT believe Spielman was calling a majority of the shots in the 2011 draft? His paws are all over it. The narrative leading up to that draft was that Minnesota needed a QB. Spielman himself even stated this in the pre-draft process. The result? A reach for a QB. The next player picked? Kyle Rudolph. A player who Rick Spielman paid a handsome extension to in exchange for potential a few short years later. The only other player remaining from 2011 on the team? Brandon Fusco. Same thing as Kyle - a premature extension from Rick Spielman based on potential. Let's just say if those weren't true Spielman guys they probably wouldn't have received big-time early extensions (not to say they wouldn't have received extensions eventually).

I will still contend to this day that Minnesota panicked when Jake Locker went to Tennessee. Instead of staying 'true to the board' (something Rick Spielman preached significantly after the 2011 draft - interesting huh?), the first-time Vikings GM (i.e. Rick) panicked and reached for Ponder.

Rick obviously learned quite a bit from that draft. Minnesota could have traded down after Locker went (something we have seen Rick do when a 'target' is off the board). Minnesota could have tried to trade up for Locker (something we have seen Rick do for a QB even - Teddy). Finally, Minnesota could have stayed put and drafted based on the board (and no one can sit here and tell me that Ponder was the best player on the Vikings' board).

My point is the evidence points to Rick being in charge of that 2011 draft. It was a failure and a learning experience. Regardless, that draft did more to hinder the team than help it.



That's not evidence; that's conjecture and supposition based on the theory he panick.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:08 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
IrishViking wrote:
When you set aside Zimmer as Zimmer and just look at the "bullet points" as "generic HC" it honestly, is a seriously mixed bag.

25-21 with a playoff loss.
Oversaw the rise and slight drop of the defense.
OC quit on him halfway through 3rd year
Has HCd an utterly enemic Offense entire tenure
Has overseen dumpster fire at Online entire tenure
Defensive consistentcy has been unbalanced
Seems like a solid honest guy


He has shown skill at being in charge of a defense this is true. But he has shown to be utterly flumexed by offense and so far has had as much luck delegating duties for that part of the team as Spielman has had with drafting Olinemen

3 years two OCs two Oline coach's, three terrible offenses


It's not a pretty picture. I think Turner leaving mid-season speaks volumes about the level of possible dysfunction on the team.

Coaches can certainly learn from their mistakes and grow but Zimmer's been a pretty stubborn, inflexible coach (if I remember correctly, it's one of the traits that made it difficult for him to find a head coaching gig in the first place) so I don't know if he'll be adaptable enough to right the ship and figure out how to field a much more balanced, effective team. I hope he can and I hope he'll have the players to do it but despite being more likable than Brad Childress, Zimmer's coaching tenure has reminded me more than once of the Brad Childress era and I don't think that's good at all.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:22 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
IrishViking wrote:
My question is, how can anyone NOT believe Spielman was calling a majority of the shots in the 2011 draft? His paws are all over it. The narrative leading up to that draft was that Minnesota needed a QB. Spielman himself even stated this in the pre-draft process. The result? A reach for a QB. The next player picked? Kyle Rudolph. A player who Rick Spielman paid a handsome extension to in exchange for potential a few short years later. The only other player remaining from 2011 on the team? Brandon Fusco. Same thing as Kyle - a premature extension from Rick Spielman based on potential. Let's just say if those weren't true Spielman guys they probably wouldn't have received big-time early extensions (not to say they wouldn't have received extensions eventually).

I will still contend to this day that Minnesota panicked when Jake Locker went to Tennessee. Instead of staying 'true to the board' (something Rick Spielman preached significantly after the 2011 draft - interesting huh?), the first-time Vikings GM (i.e. Rick) panicked and reached for Ponder.

Rick obviously learned quite a bit from that draft. Minnesota could have traded down after Locker went (something we have seen Rick do when a 'target' is off the board). Minnesota could have tried to trade up for Locker (something we have seen Rick do for a QB even - Teddy). Finally, Minnesota could have stayed put and drafted based on the board (and no one can sit here and tell me that Ponder was the best player on the Vikings' board).

My point is the evidence points to Rick being in charge of that 2011 draft. It was a failure and a learning experience. Regardless, that draft did more to hinder the team than help it.


That's not evidence; that's conjecture and supposition based on the theory he panick.[/quote]

It's a mix of evidence and conjecture but I think he's simply saying the former supports the latter enough to conclude that Spielman ran that draft. I've never really subscribed to the "Spielman panicked" theory myself but I do doubt that Ponder was the top player on the Vikings board when he was selected. I'm inclined to think Spielman just saw choosing a QB with that pick as a necessity since he and the organization had basically painted themselves into a corner with Webb as the only QB on their roster.

Whether HardcoreVikesFan is right on all counts or not, I think most evidence points overwhelmingly toward Spielman calling the shots in the 2011 draft. There's little reason to believe Frazier had any more influence on the selections the Vikings made that year than he did on subsequent picks in 2012-13 or than Zimmer has had on picks made since he was hired.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:34 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
I think Turner leaving mid-season speaks volumes about the level of possible dysfunction on the team.

Coaches can certainly learn from their mistakes and grow but Zimmer's been a pretty stubborn, inflexible coach (if I remember correctly, it's one of the traits that made it difficult for him to find a head coaching gig in the first place) so I don't know if he'll be adaptable enough to right the ship and figure out how to field a much more balanced, effective team. I hope he can and I hope he'll have the players to do it but despite being more likable than Brad Childress, Zimmer's coaching tenure has reminded me more than once of the Brad Childress era and I don't think that's good at all.


Norv Turner was the one that continued to run 7 step drops from under center getting Bradford nearly killed. Literally wouldnt get away from it. So how can you say Zimmer was the one being stubborn in that situation? Turner leaving has nothing to do with the level of "dysfunction" on the team. Zimmer was smart enough to realize we could be taking 7 step drops and sending WRs 30 yards down field. Turner didnt. And thats why Turner left. He was the one being stubborn and didnt want to change his ways. He even said "we had different views on where the offense was going". I think that says it all right there.

_________________
Image


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:38 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
I think most evidence points overwhelmingly toward Spielman calling the shots in the 2011 draft. There's little reason to believe Frazier had any more influence on the selections the Vikings made that year than he did on subsequent picks in 2012-13 or than Zimmer has had on picks made since he was hired.


We're still caught up on that? No matter what we think or say, nobody will truly know. You may think you know, however, unless you were a fly on the wall in that room, you dont and probably never will. Which is why it is much easier to evaluate post-2012 because you know he is the GM and they are his picks. Yet we continue to bring up pre-2012 like we are going to find some more answers or something and we're not

_________________
Image


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:43 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Norv Turner was the one that continued to run 7 step drops from under center getting Bradford nearly killed. Literally wouldnt get away from it. So how can you say Zimmer was the one being stubborn in that situation?


That's not what I said. You connected two separate thoughts. I even put them in separate paragraphs to make that clear.

Quote:
Turner leaving has nothing to do with the level of "dysfunction" on the team.


Of course it does. Having the offensive coordinator resign mid-season under the circumstances Turner left is is far from normal. It's indicative of a dysfunctional situation.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:48 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Of course it does. Having the offensive coordinator resign mid-season under the circumstances Turner left is is far from normal. It's indicative of a dysfunctional situation.


Bottom line is, Zimmer wanted a change and Turner was being to stubborn to make the change. It's not Zimmer's fault. Turner was too clueless to realize what was going on so he left. If anyone was being "dysfunctional" it was Turner and he is now gone.

_________________
Image


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:54 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:54 am
Posts: 209
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Obviously extending his contract and giving him a small stake in the team will turn this franchise around. Spielman just needs to know he will be financially compensated for the next decade, and then he'll start building a powerhouse offense, to go along with this impenetrable defense.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:55 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Bottom line is, Zimmer wanted a change and Turner was being to stubborn to make the change. It's not Zimmer's fault. Turner was too clueless to realize what was going on so he left. If anyone was being "dysfunctional" it was Turner and he is now gone.


:roll:

Again, they were separate thoughts.

I wasn't using Turner's departure as evidence that Zimmer's been a pretty stubborn, inflexible coach. That's been obvious all along.

I don't care whose "fault" it was that Turner left. His departure was indicative of a dysfunctional situation.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:00 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
:roll:

Again, they were separate thoughts.

I wasn't using Turner's departure as evidence that Zimmer's been a pretty stubborn, inflexible coach. That's been obvious all along.

I don't care who's "fault" it was that Turner left. His departure was indicative of a dysfunctional situation.


No need to repeat yourself or roll your eyes. I was simply addressing the 2nd post you had. And I saw what you said in the first one. I didnt say in my last post that it was what you were referring too. I was basically saying that if anything Turner was the dysfunctional one and is now gone

_________________
Image


Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:11 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Bottom line is, Zimmer wanted a change and Turner was being to stubborn to make the change. It's not Zimmer's fault. Turner was too clueless to realize what was going on so he left. If anyone was being "dysfunctional" it was Turner and he is now gone.


:roll:

Again, they were separate thoughts.

I wasn't using Turner's departure as evidence that Zimmer's been a pretty stubborn, inflexible coach. That's been obvious all along.

I don't care whose "fault" it was that Turner left. His departure was indicative of a dysfunctional situation.


I don't know if dysfunctional is the right word, that's pretty strong. I would say it's more indicative of everyone not being on the same page or he could have seen the writing was on the wall that he would be fired at the end of the year anyway. He also could have known that he wasn't the problem so resigning mid year would at least give him a talking point during future interviews that the problems with the offense wasn't him.



As far as being stubborn, I don't think that really matters. Some of the greatest coaches out there seem to be pretty stubborn, bill belichick, nick saban, Greg popovich, etc. Zimmer just hasn't built up the equity as a head coach to be stubborn, but the trait of being stubborn doesn't seem to matter much as long as you are winning.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:39 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
MrPurplenGold wrote:
I don't know if dysfunctional is the right word, that's pretty strong.


Dysfunctional, abnormal, unusual ... I'd rather not quibble over the terminology. The point is that Turner's departure was an indication of deep division and problems on the staff. The offense itself has been an indication of dysfunction.

Quote:
As far as being stubborn, I don't think that really matters. Some of the greatest coaches out there seem to be pretty stubborn, bill belichick, nick saban, Greg popovich, etc. Zimmer just hasn't built up the equity as a head coach to be stubborn, but the trait of being stubborn doesn't seem to matter much as long as you are winning.


That's why I paired stubborn with inflexible because together, they can be a lethal combination in a head coach. Belichick may be a stubborn coach but he's a very flexible, adaptable coach and those qualities have served him well. I see very little of that flexibility and adaptability in Zimmer's approach.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:51 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1606
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
This right here is a pretty clear example. 3 years and the honeymoon is still going strong.


There is very little about this team that is right on offense. If Zimmer can only handle defense he needs to be demoted to coordinator.


Last edited by IrishViking on Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:17 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4377
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
Mothman wrote:
Dysfunctional, abnormal, unusual ... I'd rather not quibble over the terminology. The point is that Turner's departure was an indication of deep division and problems on the staff. The offense itself has been an indication of dysfunction.

That's why I paired stubborn with inflexible because together, they can be a lethal combination in a head coach. Belichick may be a stubborn coach but he's a very flexible, adaptable coach and those qualities have served him well. I see very little of that flexibility and adaptability in Zimmer's approach.


See very little flexibility?? He had a disagreement with his offensive coordinator because HE wanted to make a change. Norv didnt. He realized that what they were doing offensively was going to get a QB killed.

Thats being an adaptable coach Jim. He's adapting to what we have on the offensive line and wanted to create a short pass game to keep Sam upright. He's always been known as a guy that adapts to his players strengths or lack there of. He's told the media that was exactly how his father was too. It's like you have this vision in your head that since he's a hard nosed coach he's just automatically stubborn and thats not the case. You might as well just come out and say that you arent the biggest fan of Mike Zimmer and Rick Spielman because that is becoming more and more clear as the days go on. I am a varsity lacrosse and football coach at the high school I teach at. I've seen stubborn and I've seen adaptable. I've been my fair share of both throughout my career. Being stubborn is refusing to make any kind of changes. The main reason Norv Turner is gone is because Mike Zimmer WANTED to make a CHANGE on offense. Zimmer has been known to make adjustments, especially defensively, throughout games. Unlike that Frazier guy that you some reason supported a few years back.

_________________
Image


Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:19 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
IrishViking wrote:
This right here is a pretty clear example. 3 years and the honeymoon is still going strong.


Yes, it is...

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
See very little flexibility?? He had a disagreement with his offensive coordinator because HE wanted to make a change. Norv didnt. He realized that what they were doing offensively was going to get a QB killed.

Thats being an adaptable coach Jim.


"Very little" doesn't mean "zero". I'm not saying he doesn't adapt at all. Of course he does. All coaches do to some extent.

Quote:
He's adapting to what we have on the offensive line and wanted to create a short pass game to keep Sam upright. He's always been known as a guy that adapts to his players strengths. He's told the media that was exactly how his father was too. It's like you have this vision in your head that since he's a hard nosed coach he's just automatically stubborn and thats not the case. You might as well just come out and say that you arent the biggest fan of Mike Zimmer and Rick Spielman because that is becoming more and more clear as the days go on.


Good. I've made it clear for years now that I'm not a big fan of the overall job Rick Spielman has done with the Vikings GM and I've been on the fence about Zimmer since his first season with the team (not against him, just not sold on him). I was not among the fans who embraced his arrival without skepticism or among those who declared him a great head coach, the best since Grant, etc. I've made that very clear all along too.

At this point, why wouldn't a Vikings fan be skeptical about Zimmer? The sun doesn't rise and set on defense. The offense has been gradually driven into the ground under this staff and only the utterly pathetic Rams offense is preventing the Vikes from finally hitting rock bottom in that department this season so no, I'm not Zimmer's biggest fan but I would like him to make me a bigger fan and I'd like him to succeed as Vikings head coach. There's plenty to like about the man. I'm not rooting against him.

Quote:
I am a varsity lacrosse and football coach. I've seen stubborn and I've seen adaptable. I've been my fair share of both throughout my career. The main reason Norv Turner is gone is because Mike Zimmer WANTED to make a change on offense. Zimmer has been known to make adjustments, especially defensively, throughout games. Unlike that Frazier guy that you some reason supported a few years back


Frazier made in-game adjustments too. That's such an obvious fact it's not even worth arguing about. I supported him because I think he's a good coach and because I felt the Vikings dealt him a bad hand. I support Zimmer too but that support isn't blind. I was critical of his predecessor at times and I'm critical of him. I've also praised both coaches but one of the key differences between Frazier's situation and Zimmer's is the latter has had the full support of the organization all along. He has clearly had a voice in how the team has been constructed over the past 3 years and consequently, I think he deserves to be criticized along with Spielman for the team's problems, just like he deserves praise for the strengths established during his tenure thus far.

All of that strikes me as a pretty fair position.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:53 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1606
Post Re: Rick Spielman, what should the Vikes do with him
To be clear, I think both Moth and I are on the same page; Zimmer is not a bad coach and he has brought some serious improvement's to this team. I would be happy with him staying on but changes are needed, I think Zimmer would be the first to admit that.

That said, Criticism is going around right now; Bradford, the run game, the Oline, Spielman, the front office. And Zimmer completely deserves a chunk of that criticism.


Zimmer is the head coach. Yes to a certain degree dysfunction in the front office does give him a fair reason. But It doesn't matter what his focus or strength is. He is in charge of the WHOLE team. If he cannot run an offense he must find someone who can, and he hasn't. If he cant coach an Oline he needs to find someone who can, and it seems like he still hasn't.

Giving Zimmer a pass because hes our defensive head coach and the Offense or special teams isn't his specialty is like being okay with a head contractor who can only build a nice finished basement but doesn't know anything else about home building.


Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PacificNorseWest, w_huisman and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.