fiestavike wrote:I recognize the correlation, but I'm not certain about the causation yet.
You'll get there.
That's my point: it's not just Zimmer's vision. It begins above him. He represents another chapter in an era of Vikings football largely defined by Spielman and the Wilfs.I hope to see the Wilfs exercise the kind of patience that we've seen in Pittsburg over the years. If they are applying pressure to 'win now', this team is probably 1-2 years out from full rebuilding mode. If they mortgaged the future in order to not have to open the stadium with a backup QB, that doesn't reassure me about the Wilfs. If Spielman invested in Bradford as a solid longterm solution, I feel a little better about it, despite my lukewarm opinion of Bradford as an NFL QB.
I didn't like Childress from the get go, and I think it was the right move to fire him, but I liked that they seemed to show some interest in continuity by retaining Frazier. It wasn't the right move, but it was a good instinct in my opinion. The problem was they had a wrong vision in the first place, and it never seemed to be a vision shared by the full organization.
Do they have the right vision this time around with Zimmer?
We agree about the importance of continuity, although as I've said many times, for that to yield the kind of success it has in Pittsburgh over the decades requires a commitment to the right people in the first place. That said, I don't think they necessarily made the wrong move in hiring Frazier. Where they went wrong is in hiring him without making a serious commitment and without hiring a GM first (a mistake they made with Childress too). They launched into a rebuilding mode without fully committing to the coach they'd selected to guide the team through it and undermined his chances of success for 3 years, until he was inevitably fired. They seem more committed to Zimmer and at least they now have a GM in place who fully supports (and hired) the head coach) but there are troublesome signs that not enough has truly changed, some of which you mentioned below.
They aren't stripping the team down and trying to sell off the parts, so that's a big plus!I don't know, but I like transitioning to an aggressive defense in todays NFL. The key is to get the whole organization on the same page going forward. That means you don't try to run the cover 2 and fail to invest in LBers capable of playing it at a high level. You don't try to run Turner's offense and neglect the OT position. And now, you can't try to run Shurmurs system and not get him offensive weapons that can create mismatches. You can't run Zimmer's defense and fail to have a true, effective 3 technique, and a safety who can allow more versatility. I'm reassured by the OTs they targetted in FA that they are at least looking for personnel to match their system, and not bringing in guys like Wagner to run the system we just left behind. I have a similar take on letting Peterson walk. On the other hand, Its a slight mystery to me that they let Patterson walk as we institute an offense which could make better use of his talents, but I have heard from a couple sources that he is such a goofball that maybe it was more of a cultural/personality issue than a scheme fit issue.
I haven't drawn a conclussion on the Wilfs yet, except that they are 100 percent an improvement over the ownership group and Red McCombs.