Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Holzberg
Practice Squad
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:16 am

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Holzberg » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:11 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: :lol: Our defense was not better last year man. But keep going man you're on a roll

PHP is correct... Our defense was not better for most of last year... it got better at the end which carried us into this year, but after the first 8 games it really started to slide and it hit rock bottom during the Colts game. The defense did not bounce back against the Pack and who knows for the Bears game. But the outlook going into 2017 is much worse than what the team looked like last year at this time.
0 x

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Jordysghost » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:12 pm

Husker Vike wrote:How many starting players have the Packers put on IR this year? I can think of two, Shields and Lacy, they have had numerous other injuries though.
Certainly not 15 starters like in 2010 i cant recall how many but I think there were a couple more though.

The injuries hit hard this year, the Packers, Vikings and Bears all have had issues with that.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

Holzberg
Practice Squad
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:16 am

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Holzberg » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:22 pm

mansquatch wrote:Roster wise let's leave that alone. There is speculation there, but you and I have beaten the crap out of it already. One thing I'll throw your way on it though: If they are going to continue with a more Shurmur/Andy Reid style of offense then they'll need to adjust their drafting to accommodate the needs of such a scheme. It will be very interesting to see what kind of offensive coaching changes they make this off season. The good news is it may not be as painful of a transition since we've seen our QB and WR able to play the scheme. RB and OL are the issues, but those were going to be issues no matter who they have as coach.

I think in terms of offense, Zimmer started off letting Turner have total control. We've heard him say as much on more than one occasion. During the latter portion of the 5-0 happy part of the season, I speculate that Zimmer was involving himself more, as it was obvious that the offense was struggling, but probably not a lot more. Around the time of the Chicago blow out it became clear that the offense was not just ineffective, it was spiraling and getting worse. I think at that point Zimmer pulled in the reigns. Obviously how exactly this went down is needed to be known to properly assess, but the aftermath was that Turner walked out the door on his own.

My opinion is that Turner is more at fault here. The changes Shurmer made were really obvious in their need. We had no running attack without AP and our pass protection was only consistent in it's ability to completely suck. That was clear to anyone watching the games, thus it should not have taken so long to implement the schematic change given where the roster was at due to the bevy of people on IR. It is my opinion that this taking until the CHI blowout was a direct result of Turner being stubborn. I could certainly be wrong here, but it is how I view the mess. Hindsight is 20/20, but the tackle issues were obvious. TJ Clemmings had over a season of tape of BAD play.\ before Kalil/Smith got hurt. There was no reason to expect otherwise.

The Kicker thing was a major locker room cancer and IMO laid the foundations for collapse as well. This team was on the brink after the CHI Loss. The first loss vs. DET was almost entirely on the Kicker. It never should have gone that far. They called the game in a way that all but said out loud that they had no confidence in him. If they are at that point, then why not bring someone else in and be rid of it? It is made even more mind boggling given how conservative this staff has been with playing time just about everywhere else. Why let this kicker basically run amok over the team's psyche? When guys like Waynes and Treadwell ride the bench until they are ready? It just makes no sense to me.

To me these are the two biggest boondoggles that lead to the slide. They should have come out against PHI with the changed offense and been 3 weeks ahead of schedule on the change. The staff is experienced and they knew where they were weak and how to counter the obvious counter a competent DC would empoloy. No excuse for it taking John Fox blowing them out in MNF IMO.

Once the losing took root, the next issue, IMO, was/is the inability of the coaching staff to pull the team out of it. Even after they got that win vs. AZ, they couldn't come out of the tank. This to me is a big issue for Zim. He preaches fight and overcoming adversity. This year, the team may have done it in individuals games at times, but game over game they were completely overcome by the losing. They never got their week 5 confidence back. The DEF was more resilient to this than the offense, but it gradually lost it's confidence, surrendering leads in the 4th Q and finally just completely melting down vs. IND.

The Defensive stuff of late is certainly annoying and a cause for alarm, however I am kind of dismissing it right now. To me this is just the last step of tanking out the season before it can be put out of our misery. The issue itself is obnoxious, but I think the seeds for this were sown weeks ago by the issues I outlined above. We would never be to this level of tanking if the coaches had done a better job of stemming the tide in October and November.

There is one part of this that gives hope. Most of the above is a result of mental deficiency and bad choices. These are things that can be fixed. (It looks like Kicker is basically fixed.) Nothing on our DEF side of the ball has anything to do with a lack of ability or talent. After an offseason of puting this crap behind them, they should be good to go for 2017. OL and at RB that may not be that simple though. I'm very interested in how that coaching staff is handled in the offseason...
NO! Zimmer is 100% at fault for letting Turner have full control. A HC needs to manage, have knowledge of and a plan for all phases of the game. Zimmer can do that for defense, but he cannot do it for offense and that's why he offloaded it to Turner.

I think everyone on here is optimistic because they don't want to face the truth... so let's just pretend that everything is just fine... just a couple of tweaks. :confused:

And after next year... just a couple more tweaks.

Say hi to King Friday for me.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Mothman » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:35 pm

mansquatch wrote:Roster wise let's leave that alone. There is speculation there, but you and I have beaten the crap out of it already. One thing I'll throw your way on it though: If they are going to continue with a more Shurmur/Andy Reid style of offense then they'll need to adjust their drafting to accommodate the needs of such a scheme. It will be very interesting to see what kind of offensive coaching changes they make this off season. The good news is it may not be as painful of a transition since we've seen our QB and WR able to play the scheme. RB and OL are the issues, but those were going to be issues no matter who they have as coach.

I think in terms of offense, Zimmer started off letting Turner have total control. We've heard him say as much on more than one occasion. During the latter portion of the 5-0 happy part of the season, I speculate that Zimmer was involving himself more, as it was obvious that the offense was struggling, but probably not a lot more. Around the time of the Chicago blow out it became clear that the offense was not just ineffective, it was spiraling and getting worse. I think at that point Zimmer pulled in the reigns. Obviously how exactly this went down is needed to be known to properly assess, but the aftermath was that Turner walked out the door on his own.

My opinion is that Turner is more at fault here. The changes Shurmer made were really obvious in their need. We had no running attack without AP and our pass protection was only consistent in it's ability to completely suck. That was clear to anyone watching the games, thus it should not have taken so long to implement the schematic change given where the roster was at due to the bevy of people on IR. It is my opinion that this taking until the CHI blowout was a direct result of Turner being stubborn. I could certainly be wrong here, but it is how I view the mess. Hindsight is 20/20, but the tackle issues were obvious. TJ Clemmings had over a season of tape of BAD play.\ before Kalil/Smith got hurt. There was no reason to expect otherwise.
Exactly, which is one of many reasons I think Zimmer is far more at fault here than Turner. It's also a great illustration of why I have a hard time setting aside the roster issues, which fall back on Spielman and Zimmer, the main architects of this team. To me, the coaching and roster issues are inextricably linked. I agree that if they go with a Shurmur/Reid style of offense they'll need to draft accordingly but one of the primary failings of the Zimmer era is that the Vikings went with Norv Turner's offense and didn't do a good job of building to fit that scheme.

If it took until the Bears game to make adjustments Zimmer considered necessary, that's on him. If he failed to recognize the need to adjust until after that game, that's on him too. It's his team. The responsibility to recognize and address issues with the personnel or scheme anywhere on the team ultimately falls on the head coach.
The Kicker thing was a major locker room cancer and IMO laid the foundations for collapse as well. This team was on the brink after the CHI Loss. The first loss vs. DET was almost entirely on the Kicker. It never should have gone that far. They called the game in a way that all but said out loud that they had no confidence in him. If they are at that point, then why not bring someone else in and be rid of it? It is made even more mind boggling given how conservative this staff has been with playing time just about everywhere else. Why let this kicker basically run amok over the team's psyche? When guys like Waynes and Treadwell ride the bench until they are ready? It just makes no sense to me.[

To me these are the two biggest boondoggles that lead to the slide. They should have come out against PHI with the changed offense and been 3 weeks ahead of schedule on the change. The staff is experienced and they knew where they were weak and how to counter the obvious counter a competent DC would empoloy. No excuse for it taking John Fox blowing them out in MNF IMO.

Once the losing took root, the next issue, IMO, was/is the inability of the coaching staff to pull the team out of it. Even after they got that win vs. AZ, they couldn't come out of the tank. This to me is a big issue for Zim. He preaches fight and overcoming adversity. This year, the team may have done it in individuals games at times, but game over game they were completely overcome by the losing. They never got their week 5 confidence back. The DEF was more resilient to this than the offense, but it gradually lost it's confidence, surrendering leads in the 4th Q and finally just completely melting down vs. IND.

The Defensive stuff of late is certainly annoying and a cause for alarm, however I am kind of dismissing it right now. To me this is just the last step of tanking out the season before it can be put out of our misery. The issue itself is obnoxious, but I think the seeds for this were sown weeks ago by the issues I outlined above. We would never be to this level of tanking if the coaches had done a better job of stemming the tide in October and November.
It's hard to say. I have a hard time believing a kicker could have as much impact on the psyche of a team as you're attributing to Walsh but I do think the coaching staff bears a great deal of responsibility for the team's collapse. However, I still believe the groundwork for a disappointing season was laid before it even began.

I think you asked a very pertinent question earlier: have we seen "peak Zimmer" or can he grow from this experience? When I step back, I can see both points of view on this: I believe coaches and players can learn from their mistakes, grow and improve at their jobs. I don't think Zimmer's job is in danger right now so I hope he'll do just that: improve.

On the other hand, I understand what Holzberg was saying in his post above too: we've seen 3 years of Zimmer. How much reason have we been given to believe he has a clue how to right this team's ship when it comes to offense. A 5-0 start that ends in the kind of collapse we've seen this year is a big warning sign and it's not the first. There's an argument to be made that another year of Zimmer and Spielman is going to be a wasted year on the road to a new head coach and/or GM in 2018 or 2019. There's also an argument to be made that, based on the team's success in 2015, with some changes the team could be a contender in the next year or two.

I hope the Wilfs are devoting a lot of thought and attention to what's going on with their team.
0 x

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:45 pm

Jordysghost wrote:This is in reply to PHP, i messed up the quotes.

Yea, but your D hasnt been the same since week 5. The performance of your D has been a crucial aspect of your season.

Yes those injuries did affect us, still are, but that is part of the game and I wasnt prepared to blame a lost season on them, even when it was at its worst, I always held my team responsible for making the adjustments nessecary, next man up, and that goes for every injury riddled seasons ive seen, which has been plenty. What you dont understand is ive literally seen the exact thing that happened to the Vikes O line happen before to the team i root for, its not like im without understanding.

But I don't think your injuries on O line are why you missed the playoffs, I think that is a very convenient excuse that relies on a whole lot of conjecture and optimistic speculation.
Well I disagree 100% and also do not believe that if the Packers didnt make the playoffs you wouldnt be sitting here saying injuries were why they didnt make it. No less you didnt lose those guys for the year. We did.
0 x
Image

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Jordysghost » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:49 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Well I disagree 100% and also do not believe that if the Packers didnt make the playoffs you wouldnt be sitting here saying injuries were why they didnt make it. No less you didnt lose those guys for the year. We did.
And losing our top 4 corners and all of our starting linebackers for the majority of the season already trumps some injury prone middling linemen, imo. Not to mention the year my team had 15 starters on IR, you arent the only one who deals with injuries, your just more familiar with your own then others.

Everyone deals with injuries, there are multiple other fanbases that would argue their injury issues were worse, its a tired excuse much in line with with those who use officiating as a crutch.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:54 pm

Jordysghost wrote: Again, look at your numbers after week 5, is that a top D?

Excuses for why we lost the division? No dude, I dont make excuses for failing to take the division, if I were like you id likely blame it on not having 3 of our starting 5 O linemen and two of our top 3 corners out with injury. Are you starting to see my point here?

Looks to me, like YOU are trying to make excuses as to why you couldnt defend said title. As you said, you got outplayed.

BTW, im curious how stating that your D isnt as good this year as last year is making an excuse in regards to last season, that seems utterly non sensical.
You keep continuing to say after week 5, after week 5. Are we not allowed to count those games now or something? Either way, 5 great games at the beginning of the year aren't going to keep us at #2 in total defense for the year if we played so "bad" after that. You wouldve have seen a significant drop off in the numbers and you haven't. Yet we are still at #2 overall and thats after two bad performances the past 2 weeks.

Having a deteriorated offense unlike we had in week 2 when we beat you isn't us getting "outplayed".

You're trying to sit here and say our defense was CLEARLY better last year. And that is CLEARLY wrong. The stats prove it. You're so caught up on these last two games. Last time I checked, we had two terrible games last year against you the first time and Seattle. So if anything its a wash. Either way, #2 this year and #13 last year. Literally not even close.
0 x
Image

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3458
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by mansquatch » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:57 pm

Here is the reason to think he can do better: He made a bad offensive coaching hire in the form of Turner and then gave said hire total control.

The mistake for Zimmer was hiring turner and handing him the reigns in the first place. However, it is worth noting that there are extenuating circumstances. You can't just say we've seen three years and that is that. The first year they had no AP, who at that point was the identity of the team. They also started a rooking QB before they intended to, and by and large had some success given the circumstances. There were issues in 2014, but nothing that would make anyone say this isn't the right direction.

In 2015 we say injuries up front that hampered pass protection. We also started seeing some of the stubborness on the passing plays. (perhaps most memorably that blow out at home vs. SEA) You have to give Norv some benefit of the doubt here, Teddy has mobility and thus could overcome SOME of the protection issues. Probably not as much as Turner was play calling for.

In 2016 we hit the boiling point, both Tackles go down and no Teddy Bridgewater. Now you have an immobile QB with a much better arm. You have to accommodate that change and to me, that, more than anything else is where Turner failed. This is a really bad failure IMO. TB was out before the regular season started and Bradford didn't start until week 2. They knew what he could and could not do. When the tackles went down, why the blind faith in the protection? It makes no sense and obviously there were those in the org that felt the same way.

So where is Zimmer in all that? From the get go, he gave the Reigns to Turner. So the major mistake was the hiring decision and the minor mistake was the amount of control given. Now we have to ask, is the next issue for Zimmer to learn how to coach offense or learn how to hire a better OC? IMO, it is the latter. Zimmer doesn't have time to micromanage the offense, and given his pedigree in defense we should not want him to. Also, can you really blame a HC who wants to focus on defense for giving the reigns over to a guy who was a HC for over a decade and has 30 years of coaching experience? I think that is a hard pill to swallow, it stinks of hindsight. To me the choice of Turner was the error and everything else grows form it.

I'm very curious as to how much involvement the GM has in hiring coordinators. I don't think he's had much with it to this point in his tenure. Musgrave and the various inept DCs under Frasier seemed to all be Frasier's choices. So far the same has been true with Zimmer. If that is in fact the case, then the fault for Spielman is in allowing such a structure to exist, but again we have to ask if the alternative is better? Will a HC do well when his GM picks his coordinators? That seems unlikely to me.

The main point here for me is that they need to find better offensive coaches. There is talent on this roster. Maybe Shurmer is that guy? He has certainly shown more adaptability than Turner did, but that is different than actually being competitive.

On the roster I can agree to some extent, but it worth pointing out that few teams can re-invent their roster in three years. Most are far better served by coaches that put the players they have in the best positions to succeed. That didn't happen with Bradford once the OL protection issues mounted after injuries to the tackles.


I think you are underestimating the impact Walsh had Jim. This is a defensive focused, low scoring team that grinds out wins. Points are at a premium and kicking really matters. For a team like the Falcons it would be a smaller issue. For us, it is huge. Not being able to rely on that guy to covert the opportunities that the rest of the team just fought to give him will wear thin fast.
0 x
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3458
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by mansquatch » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:59 pm

I just want to add that I'm not saying that to absolve Zimmer. I think his mistake was hiring Norv. I just do not think there is much more to it than that. The real question is whether or not he can do better hiring a different OC.
0 x
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

User avatar
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Pondering Her Percy » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:00 pm

Jordysghost wrote:
And losing our top 4 corners and all of our starting linebackers for the majority of the season already trumps some injury prone middling linemen, imo. Not to mention the year my team had 15 starters on IR, you arent the only one who deals with injuries, your just more familiar with your own then others.

Everyone deals with injuries, there are multiple other fanbases that would argue their injury issues were worse, its a tired excuse much in line with with those who use officiating as a crutch.
Dude how many times are we going to mention the 15 starters thing?? You've literally mentioned it in half your posts. We get it.

You continue to say "injury prone middling lineman". The only injury prone lineman was Smith. Kalil has minor stuff throughout his career but never missed a game. And Harris was not injury prone at all. Oh and you're also forgetting AP. So I guess it's not just "middling injury prone OL". Theres a HOF RB in there too. The same guy that led the NFL in rushing last year. Bottom line is, i'm not using it as an excuse. When you have to dumb down your offense and change everything you are doing because of injuries, yeah that has a huge effect on the team and the season. Pretty obvious if you ask me
0 x
Image

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11266
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by S197 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:03 pm

Listen,

I don't give a #### about the Packers and their problems. This is a Vikings forum and a thread about the Minnesota Vikings. So return it to topic. Further discussions on the Packers will be relegated to the NFL and/or Smack Shack sections. Read the board rules, we do not have to give equal time to other teams or their fans.

First and last warning.
0 x

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Jordysghost » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:06 pm

S197 wrote:Listen,

I don't give a #### about the Packers and their problems. This is a Vikings forum and a thread about the Minnesota Vikings. So return it to topic. Further discussions on the Packers will be relegated to the NFL and/or Smack Shack sections. Read the board rules, we do not have to give equal time to other teams or their fans.

First and last warning.
And your vastly misunderstanding the point of such a mention, when in reality it is very relevant to what me and PHP were discussing.

But as you say.
Last edited by Jordysghost on Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

Jordysghost
Packers Suck
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Jordysghost » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:10 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Dude how many times are we going to mention the 15 starters thing?? You've literally mentioned it in half your posts. We get it.

You continue to say "injury prone middling lineman". The only injury prone lineman was Smith. Kalil has minor stuff throughout his career but never missed a game. And Harris was not injury prone at all. Oh and you're also forgetting AP. So I guess it's not just "middling injury prone OL". Theres a HOF RB in there too. The same guy that led the NFL in rushing last year. Bottom line is, i'm not using it as an excuse. When you have to dumb down your offense and change everything you are doing because of injuries, yeah that has a huge effect on the team and the season. Pretty obvious if you ask me
Every rash of injuries every team has ever went through forced then to adjust their unit, that is the point.
0 x
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37384
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Mothman » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:57 pm

mansquatch wrote:Here is the reason to think he can do better: He made a bad offensive coaching hire in the form of Turner and then gave said hire total control.

The mistake for Zimmer was hiring turner and handing him the reigns in the first place. However, it is worth noting that there are extenuating circumstances. You can't just say we've seen three years and that is that. The first year they had no AP, who at that point was the identity of the team. They also started a rooking QB before they intended to, and by and large had some success given the circumstances. There were issues in 2014, but nothing that would make anyone say this isn't the right direction.

In 2015 we say injuries up front that hampered pass protection. We also started seeing some of the stubborness on the passing plays. (perhaps most memorably that blow out at home vs. SEA) You have to give Norv some benefit of the doubt here, Teddy has mobility and thus could overcome SOME of the protection issues. Probably not as much as Turner was play calling for.

In 2016 we hit the boiling point, both Tackles go down and no Teddy Bridgewater. Now you have an immobile QB with a much better arm. You have to accommodate that change and to me, that, more than anything else is where Turner failed. This is a really bad failure IMO. TB was out before the regular season started and Bradford didn't start until week 2. They knew what he could and could not do. When the tackles went down, why the blind faith in the protection? It makes no sense and obviously there were those in the org that felt the same way.

So where is Zimmer in all that? From the get go, he gave the Reigns to Turner. So the major mistake was the hiring decision and the minor mistake was the amount of control given.
I don't think that was a minor mistake because I believe a head coach has to be more involved with his team as a whole than that. However, I don't think hiring Turner was a big mistake in the first place. To me, the BIG mistake was hiring Turner and not providing him with the tools needed to run his system effectively. His basic approach to offense was no secret but the Vikings drafted a QB with downfield passing issues to run a downfield passing offense. They obviously planned to lean on their running game but they did a terrible job of putting together a good o-line that could impose their will in the running game or protect for a downfield passing game. They needed to approach the offense like they approached the defense and build wisely to fit the scheme. While Zimmer and Spielman were busily finding pieces that fit Zimmer's double A-gap scheme, Turner was asked to pound too many square pegs into round holes. I think he could and should have been more adaptable but Zimmer hired an eminently qualified coordinator.

Here's something to consider:

Turner has been either an OC or an HC calling offensive plays in the NFL for 26 straight years. In the 23 years prior to coaching for the Vikings, only once, during his last season in San Diego, did he have an offense ranked as low as the Vikings offense was during his 2.5 years in Minnesota. I think that rather clearly points to issues on the team that go beyond his ability to run an offense. I think it suggests deeper issues.
Now we have to ask, is the next issue for Zimmer to learn how to coach offense or learn how to hire a better OC? IMO, it is the latter. Zimmer doesn't have time to micromanage the offense, and given his pedigree in defense we should not want him to. Also, can you really blame a HC who wants to focus on defense for giving the reigns over to a guy who was a HC for over a decade and has 30 years of coaching experience? I think that is a hard pill to swallow, it stinks of hindsight. To me the choice of Turner was the error and everything else grows form it.
I disagree and I don't want Zimmer to learn how to coach offense or to micromanage the offense. That would be silly. However, I don't want him to focus on defense and simply turn the reigns of the offense over to someone else either. As a head coach, I think he needs to be more involved than that. Far too many people, including Zimmer himself, seem to think it's fine for him to be the defensive expert who focuses on what he knows best and let's someone else handle the details with the other 2 units on the team. However, that's basically a description of a defensive coordinator and if that's what Zimmer wants to do, that's the job he should still possess. A head coach needs to have a vision for the entire team. He needs to rely on his coordinators to handle some of the details and he needs to be involved primarily at the macro level, making sure the 3 main aspects of the team come together effectively as one team.
I'm very curious as to how much involvement the GM has in hiring coordinators. I don't think he's had much with it to this point in his tenure. Musgrave and the various inept DCs under Frasier seemed to all be Frasier's choices. So far the same has been true with Zimmer. If that is in fact the case, then the fault for Spielman is in allowing such a structure to exist, but again we have to ask if the alternative is better? Will a HC do well when his GM picks his coordinators? That seems unlikely to me.
Coaches almost always choose their staff. I think that approach makes sense.
The main point here for me is that they need to find better offensive coaches. There is talent on this roster. Maybe Shurmer is that guy? He has certainly shown more adaptability than Turner did, but that is different than actually being competitive. On the roster I can agree to some extent, but it worth pointing out that few teams can re-invent their roster in three years. Most are far better served by coaches that put the players they have in the best positions to succeed. That didn't happen with Bradford once the OL protection issues mounted after injuries to the tackles.

I think you are underestimating the impact Walsh had Jim. This is a defensive focused, low scoring team that grinds out wins. Points are at a premium and kicking really matters. For a team like the Falcons it would be a smaller issue. For us, it is huge. Not being able to rely on that guy to covert the opportunities that the rest of the team just fought to give him will wear thin fast.
I understand that it would frustrate a team to have their efforts undermined by the kicker but mentally, a team can't let that cost them games. I certainly wouldn't blame any of the losses this season primarily on Walsh.

I think this circles us back to larger coaching issues: if the Vikings want to have a low-scoring team that grinds out wins, they have to make they not only have a more reliable kicker but also a line and running game that can actually grind out yards. The Vikings failed on all counts this year and that falls on the head coach and GM far more than on the OC. To me, the offensive coaching issues are symptomatic of deeper issues at head coach and GM. I hope ownership recognizes that.
0 x

Purple Reign
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1258
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

Post by Purple Reign » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:45 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: It's not a weak excuse nor do I care what the Packers did or do. I'm not going to sit here and get in a pi**ing match with you over your team.
The number of times you've responded to Jordy since the above post proves otherwise. It's getting a little old rehasing the same points.
0 x

Post Reply