Biggest Need On The Team?
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:24 am
Offensive Line
A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
I think that is a fair assessment. My question is - Do you think they (the coaching staff) have a chance to attain that level of performance? This is not a "Fire Zimmer!" comment. Zimmer had a great year this year, and even in the games that we lost (sans the NFC Championship game, of course) I never got the feeling the Vikings were 'outclassed.' In the year previous to this one, there was so much adversity facing the team that I almost give Zimmer a 'pass' and this year was no "cakewalk," either. Zimmer will obviously be our coach next year, and I'm not unhappy with that. But...given how badly he was outcoached in the NFC Championship game, can he (will he?) ever get the Vikings to the Super Bowl?Mothman wrote: Beyond player personnel, I think this postseason demonstrated the Vikings coaching still isn't at a Super Bowl level.
I certainly have my doubts. He'll have to coach much better than he did this postseason.Just Me wrote:I think that is a fair assessment. My question is - Do you think they (the coaching staff) have a chance to attain that level of performance? This is not a "Fire Zimmer!" comment. Zimmer had a great year this year, and even in the games that we lost (sans the NFC Championship game, of course) I never got the feeling the Vikings were 'outclassed.' In the year previous to this one, there was so much adversity facing the team that I almost give Zimmer a 'pass' and this year was no "cakewalk," either. Zimmer will obviously be our coach next year, and I'm not unhappy with that. But...given how badly he was outcoached in the NFC Championship game, can he (will he?) ever get the Vikings to the Super Bowl?
I'm definitely not buying into a trend to say odds are against him. He has a young team with a ton of potential. So many things play into factor when it comes to winning a SB. Injuries to us, injuries to other teams, how you draft, who you sign, who leaves, etc. No way I can buy into that trend when there are so many other factors that go into all thisMothman wrote:I certainly have my doubts. He'll have to coach much better than he did this postseason.Just Me wrote:I think that is a fair assessment. My question is - Do you think they (the coaching staff) have a chance to attain that level of performance? This is not a "Fire Zimmer!" comment. Zimmer had a great year this year, and even in the games that we lost (sans the NFC Championship game, of course) I never got the feeling the Vikings were 'outclassed.' In the year previous to this one, there was so much adversity facing the team that I almost give Zimmer a 'pass' and this year was no "cakewalk," either. Zimmer will obviously be our coach next year, and I'm not unhappy with that. But...given how badly he was outcoached in the NFC Championship game, can he (will he?) ever get the Vikings to the Super Bowl?
I definitely think they have a chance to reach that level of performance but I also think the odds are against it. A lot will depend on Zimmer's ability to adapt and grow and obviously, there's a great deal riding on who they hire as OC and who ends up playing QB.
There's a trend I always have in the back of my mind when thinking about this subject. Years ago, I researched how long it usually takes an NFL head coach to win the Super Bowl and found if it's going to happen at all, more often than not it will happen in the first 4 seasons a head coach is with a team, sometimes faster. That has been the case for 21 of 32 Super Bowl-winning coaches (and Lombardi didn't have that chance since the Super Bowl didn't exist in his first 4 seasons with GB). Zimmer just passed that 4 season mark.
Since 1981, with the exception of Bill Cowher, 23 of the 24 head coaches who won the Super Bowl did so within 5 years of signing with a team. Cowher shows that patience can be rewarded since he won it in his 14th season with Pittsburgh, although he did get his team to a SB in his first 4 years. He just lost it.
If Zimmer's going to win it all with the Vikes, the trend says it will happen next season or likely not happen at all. Of course, it's just a trend and there's obviously no hard and fast rule about this so he could buck that trend and win the SB in year 6 or 7 with the Vikes, assuming he's the coach that long.
All we can do is wait and see what happens.
The trend exists. It's not a matter of personal feelings or belief. The odds, if calculated, would be derived from the available data so they exist too (does anybody care to calculate them?). It's simply a fact that the majority of SB-winning HCs (and 24 of the last 25) won it all within their first 5 seasons, and more often than not, in 4 or less. In that sense the odds are already working against Zimmer but that doesn't mean he can't buck the trend and beat them. Heck, maybe he'll win the Super Bowl next year and fit right into the trend!Pondering Her Percy wrote:I'm definitely not buying into a trend to say odds are against him. He has a young team with a ton of potential. So many things play into factor when it comes to winning a SB. Injuries to us, injuries to other teams, how you draft, who you sign, who leaves, etc. No way I can buy into that trend when there are so many other factors that go into all this
But like I said, anything could happen. What if Kirk Cousins is our QB next year and we make the SB and he blows out his knee on the first drive and we lose? Like there are so many factors that play into everything. A trend is the last thing I'm worried aboutMothman wrote:The trend exists. It's not a matter of personal feelings or belief. The odds, if calculated, would be derived from the available data so they exist too (does anybody care to calculate them?). It's simply a fact that the majority of SB-winning HCs (and 24 of the last 25) won it all within their first 5 seasons, and more often than not, in 4 or less. In that sense the odds are already working against Zimmer but that doesn't mean he can't buck the trend and beat them. Heck, maybe he'll win the Super Bowl next year and fit right into the trend!Pondering Her Percy wrote:I'm definitely not buying into a trend to say odds are against him. He has a young team with a ton of potential. So many things play into factor when it comes to winning a SB. Injuries to us, injuries to other teams, how you draft, who you sign, who leaves, etc. No way I can buy into that trend when there are so many other factors that go into all this
I'm not suggesting a trend defines who can or can't win the Super Bowl. It's simply something to think about it because clearly, it's indicative of something. 23 out of 24 isn't an accident.
I think you're missing the point.Pondering Her Percy wrote:But like I said, anything could happen. What if Kirk Cousins is our QB next year and we make the SB and he blows out his knee on the first drive and we lose? Like there are so many factors that play into everything. A trend is the last thing I'm worried aboutMothman wrote:The trend exists. It's not a matter of personal feelings or belief. The odds, if calculated, would be derived from the available data so they exist too (does anybody care to calculate them?). It's simply a fact that the majority of SB-winning HCs (and 24 of the last 25) won it all within their first 5 seasons, and more often than not, in 4 or less. In that sense the odds are already working against Zimmer but that doesn't mean he can't buck the trend and beat them. Heck, maybe he'll win the Super Bowl next year and fit right into the trend!Pondering Her Percy wrote:I'm definitely not buying into a trend to say odds are against him. He has a young team with a ton of potential. So many things play into factor when it comes to winning a SB. Injuries to us, injuries to other teams, how you draft, who you sign, who leaves, etc. No way I can buy into that trend when there are so many other factors that go into all this
I'm not suggesting a trend defines who can or can't win the Super Bowl. It's simply something to think about it because clearly, it's indicative of something. 23 out of 24 isn't an accident.
I get it, there's a trend. But there are so many other things that come into play that have a lot more meaning than a trend does. The trend means nothing to me. Thats my point.Mothman wrote: I think you're missing the point.
I'm not surprised.Pondering Her Percy wrote:I get it, there's a trend. But there are so many other things that come into play that have a lot more meaning than a trend does. The trend means nothing to me. Thats my point.Mothman wrote: I think you're missing the point.
Not sure what that's suppose to mean but I'll leave it at agree to disagreeMothman wrote:I'm not surprised.Pondering Her Percy wrote:I get it, there's a trend. But there are so many other things that come into play that have a lot more meaning than a trend does. The trend means nothing to me. Thats my point.Mothman wrote: I think you're missing the point.