Once in Nineteen...

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

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 198

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by CharVike » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:03 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:00 am
S197 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:04 am
I think the division between fans is mainly because at the end of the day, the Vikings are by many accounts a highly polarized team. Take the stat about how we’re the first team to lose 40 playoff games. Depressing. But on the other hand, that stat means we’ve played in over 40+ playoff games!

In general the Vikings over whatever time period you’ve lived is likely to have a pretty good overall record. And yet we dwell with the likes of the Browns and Lions as franchises that have never won the Super Bowl. So whether you’re the eternal optimist or pessimist, the Vikings probably have a book full of stats and records that will back up your position.

The Vikings paradox is they both suck and are actually pretty damn good at the same time. Blair Walsh is maybe the most model Vikings player ever. Dude hits an NFL record 10 of 10 FGs from 50+. Scores more points his rookie season than Moss. But yet he shanks the most important 26 yard FG of his life and gets to a point where even PATs become a challenge. Was Walsh a great or terrible kicker? He was both.

And that’s really the root of the issue to me, there’s no quantifiable way to prove anything with this team. It’s all about perspective. Next season is like Walsh lining up for a 40-yard FG. You get this real uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach as you keep thinking, “this is going wide right...again.” But even as you say it, deep down you have a little bit of hope because you’ve seen that sonofabitch nail those 50 yarders like they were chip shots.
See, this is where I think it's important to understand the distinction between Vikings fans of different eras.

I'm old enough to have lived through the 70s. Those were my teen years, my formative years. And believe me when I tell you, the Vikings were anything but losers in those days. They were truly feared across the league. Those late 60s, early 70s defenses were the 2000 Ravens long before the 2000 Ravens. Guys like Lonnie Warwick were so tough and mean they practically ate glass. And the media had great respect for them, which seems ridiculous today. Yes, they lost four Super Bowls, but they also WENT to four Super Bowls in 7 years. If they had won even one of those, history would talk about that time as a dynasty. Most of us who witnessed the '75 team are convinced they would have won the SB that year if not for the Hail Mary, as that was probably the best of a long run of great teams. So to a person like me, the Vikings are THAT organization. Not the one of the past 19 years that can't seem to get out of its own way.

I realize things are different now. But when people say the Vikings are competitive losers, guys like me go, "Hey wait a minute." Yes, it was a very long time ago, and I'm probably living in the past, but I'm fiercely proud of my team, based on those great years. I'm not saying younger fans are wrong to be frustrated. But when those my age speak out against the current organization, it's likely because we're comparing it to the way things were during the 70s. Just a different perspective, but the same outcome ... grumbling.
I said that on another post. Those defenses in the early 70s would stack up against anybody.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 578

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:34 am

mansquatch wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:26 am
I think part of the volatility in the Zimmer era is the fact that parity is a thing in the NFL. Look around the league and the only teams in the last 20 years that have had consistent success are those that possess that elite level passer. Every other one has ups and downs. Even teams with an elite passer are up and down in the playoffs in more recent history, the sole exception being Patriots and Steelers. Both the Saints and Packers have had several down years of late.

Also look no further than GB to see that even with that elite QB you are not guarrantee to win in the post season. We've seen the Packers routinely dissappoint in the post season year after year. Same with the Steelers and the Saints. I would even go so far to say that in recent history the Patriots success hasn't been as much about Brady as it has been about having the combo platter of Gronk, Edelman, and their RBs. With Gronk out of the Mix Brady was unable to elevate the offense as the mathcup challenges just ere not the same for a playoff ready defense. Brady gets a lot of accolades for his resume, many deserved, but he wasn't a top 5 passer in the NFL this year.

Also consider that the hated Packers won exactly as many playoff games as the Vikings this year and they had a far easier playoff experience before losing the in the same stadium the Vikings lost in. From a playoff perspective you might say our experiences were equal? WE didn't get dominated as badly by the 49ers either. There is a strong case to be made that LUCK was a huge factor in their season, the had by far the easier playoff path this year and a CAKE schedule.

larger point here is that the league changes and evolves and history isn't always directly relevant to the future. (Just ask the Cowboys and how their 1990s style teams doesn't even make the post season.)

Right now Mahomes is the new king. But look at what is around him. He has as a HC one of the two best offensive minds in football, a guy who can build an offense around him. He is also complimented by a great amount of speed with his weapons. Is Mahomes the same monster without the speed at WR? Or without his mobility? No. We also are seeing a very big comeback of the rushing game. Jimmy Garroppolo is no Mahomes, yet his team brings probably the best running attack in the NFL complimented by strong skill players at WR and TE. (But not much depth.)

Very different styles.

IMO, the NFL, despite it's issues, is having a bit of a rennaissance. We are getting away from the dynasties of the 90s and all HOF passers of the 2000s and 2010s. The 2020s seems to presenting different ways for teams to win and be elite. (Could the 49ers and Ravens be more different than the Chiefs and Packers?)

The Vikings are set on the course of the 49ers style of team. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. 49ers are better in the trenches. We have stronger skill players (other htan Kittle) and our defensive back 7 is superior.

What is right, what is wrong? I don't know.
Seriously great post, man.

I'll add this about Mahomes. Right now, the Chiefs can afford Travis Kelce and Tyreek Hill and Sammy Watkins and Frank Clark on defense because Mahomes is on his rookie contract. Once he gets his $40 million or more, they're going to be facing the same dilemma that every other team with a high-priced quarterback faces. They'll be hard-pressed to keep a roster that talented around him.

And THAT is a big part of the parity you talk about. The salary cap evens things out.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Raptorman
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Sebastian, FL
x 64

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Raptorman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:44 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:00 am

See, this is where I think it's important to understand the distinction between Vikings fans of different eras.

I'm old enough to have lived through the 70s. Those were my teen years, my formative years. And believe me when I tell you, the Vikings were anything but losers in those days. They were truly feared across the league. Those late 60s, early 70s defenses were the 2000 Ravens long before the 2000 Ravens. Guys like Lonnie Warwick were so tough and mean they practically ate glass. And the media had great respect for them, which seems ridiculous today. Yes, they lost four Super Bowls, but they also WENT to four Super Bowls in 7 years. If they had won even one of those, history would talk about that time as a dynasty. Most of us who witnessed the '75 team are convinced they would have won the SB that year if not for the Hail Mary, as that was probably the best of a long run of great teams. So to a person like me, the Vikings are THAT organization. Not the one of the past 19 years that can't seem to get out of its own way.

I realize things are different now. But when people say the Vikings are competitive losers, guys like me go, "Hey wait a minute." Yes, it was a very long time ago, and I'm probably living in the past, but I'm fiercely proud of my team, based on those great years. I'm not saying younger fans are wrong to be frustrated. But when those my age speak out against the current organization, it's likely because we're comparing it to the way things were during the 70s. Just a different perspective, but the same outcome ... grumbling.
This is true. Back in those days, the perpetual loser was the Patriots. By 1976 the Vikings had lost more Super bowls than playoff games the Pats had been in. So it's all a matter of perspective. And for those of older fans, we remember those days. You read about them, we watched it happen. As to losing Super Bowls. Once you win one the stigma should go away, but just watch, for the Vikings it won't. It did for Denver. And no one talks about the 5 the Patriots have lost or the 4 that Denver lost before they won one.
0 x
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 198

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by CharVike » Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:43 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:34 am
mansquatch wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:26 am
I think part of the volatility in the Zimmer era is the fact that parity is a thing in the NFL. Look around the league and the only teams in the last 20 years that have had consistent success are those that possess that elite level passer. Every other one has ups and downs. Even teams with an elite passer are up and down in the playoffs in more recent history, the sole exception being Patriots and Steelers. Both the Saints and Packers have had several down years of late.

Also look no further than GB to see that even with that elite QB you are not guarrantee to win in the post season. We've seen the Packers routinely dissappoint in the post season year after year. Same with the Steelers and the Saints. I would even go so far to say that in recent history the Patriots success hasn't been as much about Brady as it has been about having the combo platter of Gronk, Edelman, and their RBs. With Gronk out of the Mix Brady was unable to elevate the offense as the mathcup challenges just ere not the same for a playoff ready defense. Brady gets a lot of accolades for his resume, many deserved, but he wasn't a top 5 passer in the NFL this year.

Also consider that the hated Packers won exactly as many playoff games as the Vikings this year and they had a far easier playoff experience before losing the in the same stadium the Vikings lost in. From a playoff perspective you might say our experiences were equal? WE didn't get dominated as badly by the 49ers either. There is a strong case to be made that LUCK was a huge factor in their season, the had by far the easier playoff path this year and a CAKE schedule.

larger point here is that the league changes and evolves and history isn't always directly relevant to the future. (Just ask the Cowboys and how their 1990s style teams doesn't even make the post season.)

Right now Mahomes is the new king. But look at what is around him. He has as a HC one of the two best offensive minds in football, a guy who can build an offense around him. He is also complimented by a great amount of speed with his weapons. Is Mahomes the same monster without the speed at WR? Or without his mobility? No. We also are seeing a very big comeback of the rushing game. Jimmy Garroppolo is no Mahomes, yet his team brings probably the best running attack in the NFL complimented by strong skill players at WR and TE. (But not much depth.)

Very different styles.

IMO, the NFL, despite it's issues, is having a bit of a rennaissance. We are getting away from the dynasties of the 90s and all HOF passers of the 2000s and 2010s. The 2020s seems to presenting different ways for teams to win and be elite. (Could the 49ers and Ravens be more different than the Chiefs and Packers?)

The Vikings are set on the course of the 49ers style of team. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. 49ers are better in the trenches. We have stronger skill players (other htan Kittle) and our defensive back 7 is superior.

What is right, what is wrong? I don't know.
Seriously great post, man.

I'll add this about Mahomes. Right now, the Chiefs can afford Travis Kelce and Tyreek Hill and Sammy Watkins and Frank Clark on defense because Mahomes is on his rookie contract. Once he gets his $40 million or more, they're going to be facing the same dilemma that every other team with a high-priced quarterback faces. They'll be hard-pressed to keep a roster that talented around him.

And THAT is a big part of the parity you talk about. The salary cap evens things out.
I'm looking forward to see Mahomes face this 49er D. This will be a true test for him. I think the NFL is looking how to ease the burden for teams that have a high cost QB. Once you have a big dollar QB it's harder to field a decent team around him. Many things play into that but the 49ers did it and as many have said wait till the young guys need a contract. As for Dallas yes Jones is trying to duplicate the early 90s. There's nothing wrong with that but you better have the players to do it. First thing in my mind is their current QB can't beat a good team. Aikman beat good teams. And that's the main reason why his contract stuff is dragging on. If I'm Dallas I would tell him we are not giving out top money to a guy that can't even get us in the playoffs when there is no real competition in the division. That team has no cap and don't even have a high priced QB yet. It's managed badly.
0 x

mansquatch
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
x 112

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by mansquatch » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:51 pm

One suggestion I have is to completely ignore the media both locally and nationally right now. Those clowns are talking about cutting everybody and blowing it up like it would be good for the team. They only think about next year. They are lost in all the follies of amateurish fans, like Free Agency solving problems or the next draft picking being the next Peyton Manning. (And they get paid to do this...) The reality is most NFL players have a 3 year career. PERIOD. Most Free Agent signings are dumpster fire. Competing in the NFL is a team thing, and that includes coaches, managements, and players. Rookies might not even contribute much next year, the real question is which 2nd or 3rd year guy is going to turn it on?

So much garbage out there. I would remind people that if you take out the Patriots, the NFL has had a lot of different great teams year in and year out. BB is the most dominant coach in any sport ever. I think the skews the view of people that we should be that way. There is only one BB! So either find the next BB or try be the team that gets in for a quick window because that is everyone else in the league.
0 x
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi

User avatar
Raptorman
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Sebastian, FL
x 64

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Raptorman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:44 pm

mansquatch wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:51 pm
One suggestion I have is to completely ignore the media both locally and nationally right now. Those clowns are talking about cutting everybody and blowing it up like it would be good for the team. They only think about next year. They are lost in all the follies of amateurish fans, like Free Agency solving problems or the next draft picking being the next Peyton Manning. (And they get paid to do this...) The reality is most NFL players have a 3 year career. PERIOD. Most Free Agent signings are dumpster fire. Competing in the NFL is a team thing, and that includes coaches, managements, and players. Rookies might not even contribute much next year, the real question is which 2nd or 3rd year guy is going to turn it on?

So much garbage out there. I would remind people that if you take out the Patriots, the NFL has had a lot of different great teams year in and year out. BB is the most dominant coach in any sport ever. I think the skews the view of people that we should be that way. There is only one BB! So either find the next BB or try be the team that gets in for a quick window because that is everyone else in the league.
What's interesting is BB isn't even the coach with the highest win percentage. Madden's is better. As is Jim Harboughs. BB currently sits at 9th. Zimmer is 36th.
0 x
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 209

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by VikingLord » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:41 pm

Mothman wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:52 am
In short, I still think one of the reasons discussions of the Vikes are often so contentious is because in this century, the team has spent so much time existing in a somewhat undefined state, rarely elite, rarely awful, where it's easy to see the glass as half full or half empty because it's not clear. Are they on the way up? Are they on the way down? Are they treading water?
They are the definition of mediocrity IMHO, at least since the year 2000.

Their most successful season since 2000 was 2009 IMHO where they had an imbecile for a head coach, but the GM had stocked the team with enough elite talent that they literally were missing just that spark at QB, whom they found in a Brett Favre with a chip on his shoulder after parting with the Packers on less than good terms. That team finished with one fewer win than the 2017 team, but in my view was a far better team that could have (and maybe should have) gone to the Superbowl.

That team couldn't maintain that level of success despite keeping many of the pieces intact the following year, mostly because said QB's heart wasn't in another run. He gave everything he had left in 2009 and, after getting beat to a pulp by the Saints as well as beating the Packers twice that year, just wanted to retire. Favre played 2010 not for himself as he did in 2009, but for others, and it showed. And the team regressed with him, because without Favre's on-field player leadership to overcome the incompetence of the head coach and the lack of on-field leadership from anyone besides Favre, that Vikings team topped out.

If we look at the other successful season in 2017, that team ended up starting a 3rd-string journeyman QB who literally had nothing to lose. Case Keenum was like a 14 year old who just got the keys to his Dad's Lamborghini and his parents were out of town for the week. Once again, supremely talented team that just needed a turbocharger at QB and an on-field fearless leader to get the engine humming, and hum they did right up until Case finally realized he had something to play for and he started playing like it. Prior to that he played a lot like Favre in 2009, footloose and fancy free and wasn't afraid to sling it and make a mistake or two along the way.

If you ask me what's wrong with the team, both right now and in fact throughout most of this century, it's

A) Lack of real player leadership despite plenty of player talent, some of it truly elite at times
B) Failure of creativity, mostly at the coaching level and some at the GM level that has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at critical moments

Those are the two things holding the team back in my view. An example at the GM level would be the drafting of Ponder, and then the subsequent failure to consider drafting Russel Wilson because they had already drafted Ponder. Was Ponder really a special talent at QB? Did he have a higher ceiling than he'd already realized? Had he demonstrated that the jump pass under pressure was the next Big Thing at the QB position in the pros?

Yes, the Vikings drafted Ponder and passed on Wilson. Earlier in the century they traded Moss and then used the extra pick they got for Moss to try to replace Moss (which was impossible), passing on Rodgers not once, but TWICE, in that draft. Note - Rodgers is still playing and still playing at a high enough level. The Packers continue to enjoy stability at the QB position.

An example at the coaching level is Mike Zimmer. Yes, Zimmer is an example of this. Why is he an example of this? Because plenty of head coaches have rebuilt teams and gotten them farther in the playoffs faster than Zimmer has (or will, IMHO). What do I base that on? I base it on the relatively simple fact that despite having been promoted to head coach, Zimmer still functions as the team's defacto defensive coordinator and has every year he's been head coach. We still talk about the defense as Zimmer's defense, and the player choices out there are Zimmer's choices. A coordinator at the pro level is charged with managing a distinct aspect of a team. When said coordinator gets promoted to head coach, he is charged with managing the overall team. Said head coach should be empowered to hire his own coordinators who he can then work with to design a team and an approach that can win games and hopefully get the team to the promised land. Whenever a coordinator refuses to cede control over an aspect of a team, that tells me said coordinator isn't doing the job he was hired to do, but is stuck trying to do the job he did while the job he needs to do isn't getting done as well as it could be done. Teams hire head coaches to be head coaches, and coordinators to work with head coaches to design and implement. Zimmer has never stopped being a defensive coordinator IMHO.

So to sum things up, if you look at a team like the 49ers, it's clearly possible to turn things around quickly with the right people in the right places. You don't even need an elite QB to do it. You do need a GM that understands the role of a GM and is capable of spotting the right opportunities at the right times and is willing to pull the trigger on said opportunities. You need a head coach who has a strong vision as to what the team needs to be able to do and how he can get the players he has as close as possible to being able to implement that consistently, and then you also need strong on-field player leaders who can hold their teammates accountable and command their respect, mostly by the example they themselves set on and off the field. Look what the 49ers have. On defense they have Richard Sherman. If you don't think Sherman has a huge amount to do with the performance of the 49er secondary this year, think again. Yes, he's one guy, but he's a force multiplier not just due to his skills, but his leadership as well. Contrast Sherman's influence with any of the Vikings DBs. The Vikings undoubtedly have talented DBs, but player leaders? No, I don't see that in the Vikings secondary. I see a lot of talented guys making a lot of excuses and pointing a lot of fingers.

On offense the 49ers have George Kittle, a former 5th round TE who is blocking and knocking and catching the socks off pretty much everyone. Doesn't care about his stats. He'll do whatever he's asked to do and he'll do it well and quietly. He'll sacrifice his personal glory for the team. Contrast that with Stefon Diggs. Diggs is probably more talented. He's also nowhere near the type of player leader that a guy like Kittle is.

You get those three elements in place, you win. It's as simple as that, and in my view so far in the 2000's the Vikings have been average to below average in both.

I think Spielman isn't terrible. He's done a good job of evaluating talent. He's just missed on finding talented player leaders, so the teams he has built are almost universally missing that special something and everyone, probably including him, knows it.

Zimmer will be a defensive coordinator until the day he retires in my view. He has not stepped into the head coach role and I don't see that changing. Good head coaches are out there and coordinators who can become good head coaches are out there.

And as far as the players go, in a diva league filled with highly paid athletes who talk about moving on, learning from this last game, yada yada yada, until the Vikings find some guys who are capable of telling it like it is, not to be divisive or cruel or that have bad attitudes, but that tell it like it is to everyone else and, most importantly, to themselves, we'll continue to be treated to seasons of highlight reel plays that ultimately culminate in disappointing finishes.

Want a return to a decade of dominance? Find the next Jim Finks. Find the next Bud Grant. Find the next Joe Kapp. Yeah, you can win plenty with less-heralded guys who just play authentically and really, really care about their teammates and the outcome of games and who aren't full of the BS they feed themselves and try to feed everyone else about why they failed.
0 x

User avatar
Raptorman
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Sebastian, FL
x 64

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Raptorman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:51 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:41 pm


Yes, the Vikings drafted Ponder and passed on Wilson. Earlier in the century they traded Moss and then used the extra pick they got for Moss to try to replace Moss (which was impossible), passing on Rodgers not once, but TWICE, in that draft. Note - Rodgers is still playing and still playing at a high enough level. The Packers continue to enjoy stability at the QB position.
I'll take the time to address this first. Why didn't we draft Rodgers? I've heard it many times over the years. But what many fail to realize or fail to remember we had a damn good QB at that time. Just because he got hurt and turned into a total jerk is not something anyone could have predicted. So let me ask you this. How many first-round QB's have the Packers, Patriots, Saints, Falcons, Steelers, and Lions drafted in the first round while their current starters are playing? But, the Vikings should have drafted Rodgers 3 months after Culpepper threw for 4,700 yards and 39 Touchdowns, and 11 interceptions.
0 x
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38078
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 270

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Mothman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:05 pm

mansquatch wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:51 pm
One suggestion I have is to completely ignore the media both locally and nationally right now. Those clowns are talking about cutting everybody and blowing it up like it would be good for the team. They only think about next year. They are lost in all the follies of amateurish fans, like Free Agency solving problems or the next draft picking being the next Peyton Manning. (And they get paid to do this...) The reality is most NFL players have a 3 year career. PERIOD. Most Free Agent signings are dumpster fire. Competing in the NFL is a team thing, and that includes coaches, managements, and players. Rookies might not even contribute much next year, the real question is which 2nd or 3rd year guy is going to turn it on?

So much garbage out there. I would remind people that if you take out the Patriots, the NFL has had a lot of different great teams year in and year out. BB is the most dominant coach in any sport ever. I think the skews the view of people that we should be that way. There is only one BB! So either find the next BB or try be the team that gets in for a quick window because that is everyone else in the league.
I disagree. That's not everyone else in the league. The Patriots have had an exceptional and historic run of success but there are other teams that have made the playoffs far more often than not over an extended period of time. Nobody else can touch their championship and Super Bowl success but Green Bay has been to the postseason 20 times in the last 27 years and has gone 2-1 in Super Bowls during that period. Seattle has been to the postseason 12 times in the last 16 seasons and played in 3 Super Bowls in that stretch.

The Ravens have been to the playoffs 8 times in 12 years and won a Super Bowl. They've won 2 in the last 20 years. The Steelers have had a bit of a dry spell lately but they've been to the playoffs 10 times in the last 16 years, played in 3 Super Bowls and won two.

In other words, it's not just the Patriots and everyone else. Maybe the extent of their success skews views a little but there have been other teams out there making the postseason frequently over extended periods of time (I didn't name that all) and reaching the Super Bowl more than once in a decade, much less 4+ decades.
0 x

User avatar
Raptorman
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Sebastian, FL
x 64

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Raptorman » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:11 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:41 pm


An example at the coaching level is Mike Zimmer. Yes, Zimmer is an example of this. Why is he an example of this? Because plenty of head coaches have rebuilt teams and gotten them farther in the playoffs faster than Zimmer has (or will, IMHO). What do I base that on? I base it on the relatively simple fact that despite having been promoted to head coach, Zimmer still functions as the team's defacto defensive coordinator and has every year he's been head coach. We still talk about the defense as Zimmer's defense, and the player choices out there are Zimmer's choices. A coordinator at the pro level is charged with managing a distinct aspect of a team. When said coordinator gets promoted to head coach, he is charged with managing the overall team. Said head coach should be empowered to hire his own coordinators who he can then work with to design a team and an approach that can win games and hopefully get the team to the promised land. Whenever a coordinator refuses to cede control over an aspect of a team, that tells me said coordinator isn't doing the job he was hired to do, but is stuck trying to do the job he did while the job he needs to do isn't getting done as well as it could be done. Teams hire head coaches to be head coaches, and coordinators to work with head coaches to design and implement. Zimmer has never stopped being a defensive coordinator IMHO.
Next. There is a whole slew of NFL head coaches who call plays for both offense and defense. Kyle Shanahan, Andy Read, Mike McCarthy, and many more. This is not out of the ordinary. I don't see how this in any way interferes with the ability of anyone on offense or defense to do their jobs.
0 x
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966

User avatar
S197
Fenrir
Posts: 11952
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 266

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by S197 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:09 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:00 am
S197 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:04 am
I think the division between fans is mainly because at the end of the day, the Vikings are by many accounts a highly polarized team. Take the stat about how we’re the first team to lose 40 playoff games. Depressing. But on the other hand, that stat means we’ve played in over 40+ playoff games!

In general the Vikings over whatever time period you’ve lived is likely to have a pretty good overall record. And yet we dwell with the likes of the Browns and Lions as franchises that have never won the Super Bowl. So whether you’re the eternal optimist or pessimist, the Vikings probably have a book full of stats and records that will back up your position.

The Vikings paradox is they both suck and are actually pretty damn good at the same time. Blair Walsh is maybe the most model Vikings player ever. Dude hits an NFL record 10 of 10 FGs from 50+. Scores more points his rookie season than Moss. But yet he shanks the most important 26 yard FG of his life and gets to a point where even PATs become a challenge. Was Walsh a great or terrible kicker? He was both.

And that’s really the root of the issue to me, there’s no quantifiable way to prove anything with this team. It’s all about perspective. Next season is like Walsh lining up for a 40-yard FG. You get this real uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach as you keep thinking, “this is going wide right...again.” But even as you say it, deep down you have a little bit of hope because you’ve seen that sonofabitch nail those 50 yarders like they were chip shots.
See, this is where I think it's important to understand the distinction between Vikings fans of different eras.

I'm old enough to have lived through the 70s. Those were my teen years, my formative years. And believe me when I tell you, the Vikings were anything but losers in those days. They were truly feared across the league. Those late 60s, early 70s defenses were the 2000 Ravens long before the 2000 Ravens. Guys like Lonnie Warwick were so tough and mean they practically ate glass. And the media had great respect for them, which seems ridiculous today. Yes, they lost four Super Bowls, but they also WENT to four Super Bowls in 7 years. If they had won even one of those, history would talk about that time as a dynasty. Most of us who witnessed the '75 team are convinced they would have won the SB that year if not for the Hail Mary, as that was probably the best of a long run of great teams. So to a person like me, the Vikings are THAT organization. Not the one of the past 19 years that can't seem to get out of its own way.

I realize things are different now. But when people say the Vikings are competitive losers, guys like me go, "Hey wait a minute." Yes, it was a very long time ago, and I'm probably living in the past, but I'm fiercely proud of my team, based on those great years. I'm not saying younger fans are wrong to be frustrated. But when those my age speak out against the current organization, it's likely because we're comparing it to the way things were during the 70s. Just a different perspective, but the same outcome ... grumbling.
That's a good point Kapp, a lot of us, myself included missed the late 60s and 70s teams. The closest for me was the '98 offense. Doesn't seem like 20+ years ago! Time sure does fly...

I can only imagine what it was like back in you and Jim's era when the Vikings were formidable and velociraptors roamed the earth :tongue:
0 x

User avatar
Raptorman
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Sebastian, FL
x 64

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by Raptorman » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:42 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:00 am

See, this is where I think it's important to understand the distinction between Vikings fans of different eras.

I'm old enough to have lived through the 70s. Those were my teen years, my formative years. And believe me when I tell you, the Vikings were anything but losers in those days. They were truly feared across the league. Those late 60s, early 70s defenses were the 2000 Ravens long before the 2000 Ravens. Guys like Lonnie Warwick were so tough and mean they practically ate glass. And the media had great respect for them, which seems ridiculous today. Yes, they lost four Super Bowls, but they also WENT to four Super Bowls in 7 years. If they had won even one of those, history would talk about that time as a dynasty. Most of us who witnessed the '75 team are convinced they would have won the SB that year if not for the Hail Mary, as that was probably the best of a long run of great teams. So to a person like me, the Vikings are THAT organization. Not the one of the past 19 years that can't seem to get out of its own way.

I realize things are different now. But when people say the Vikings are competitive losers, guys like me go, "Hey wait a minute." Yes, it was a very long time ago, and I'm probably living in the past, but I'm fiercely proud of my team, based on those great years. I'm not saying younger fans are wrong to be frustrated. But when those my age speak out against the current organization, it's likely because we're comparing it to the way things were during the 70s. Just a different perspective, but the same outcome ... grumbling.
This is so true. Fans these days have it easy. I remember watching Packer games because I wanted to be there at halftime to see the scores and highlights of the Vikings game. Waiting for the newspaper the next day to get the 5 paragraph description of the game and see the stats. And you couldn't wait until they played one of the AFC teams because it would be on a different channel than the Packers and you had a chance to see the game. Back then If I saw 4 Vikings games a year it was special.

There is one thing a lot of fans today don't have that most of us older fans have.

Patience.
2 x
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 209

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by VikingLord » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:28 pm

Raptorman wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:51 pm
I'll take the time to address this first. Why didn't we draft Rodgers? I've heard it many times over the years. But what many fail to realize or fail to remember we had a damn good QB at that time. Just because he got hurt and turned into a total jerk is not something anyone could have predicted. So let me ask you this. How many first-round QB's have the Packers, Patriots, Saints, Falcons, Steelers, and Lions drafted in the first round while their current starters are playing? But, the Vikings should have drafted Rodgers 3 months after Culpepper threw for 4,700 yards and 39 Touchdowns, and 11 interceptions.
That is a good point. Culpepper looked like the future and I agree both that there were no indications Culpepper would flame out nor was Rodgers a sure thing. So I can't argue the point on those merits, but I can argue it on what the purpose of the draft is and that is to stock the team with as much talent as possible. Since the draft is basically a lottery where a team gets a slot to pick and must select from among the players available at that slot, it is very tempting to try to force picks (ala what the Vikings did with the pick they got from the Moss trade or the pick of Ponder). The team has a definite need at a given spot, so picking a player at that spot when other objectively better players are on the board is tempting.

But just because a team doesn't have a defined need at the slot doesn't justify passing up an objectively better player. Take when the Vikings drafted Adrian Peterson. They had Chester Taylor who was coming off a very good year. Or take your example of the Packers. They had Brett Favre when they drafted Rodgers. Favre had won one Superbowl with the Packers and lost another with them and was still playing at a high level, but the Packers still took Rodgers. Or even take the Vikings with Randy Moss, a clear elite talent who fell into their laps in the 1st round but didn't fill an obvious need.

The purpose of the draft is not to meet immediate needs per se but to stock the team with as much talent as possible. A good GM also understands that any position can become a position of need at any time due to injury or other unexpected events (like your star RB gets suspended for a year on child abuse chargers). Likewise, a good GM doesn't force picks either. He understands there are multiple ways to address immediate needs in any given offseason, and while the draft might be generous and provide the right player at the right time, it also might not. Forcing picks is as good as wasting picks. Spielman has been guilty of that, but he's also made some very good choices. So it's a mixed bag with him.

And there is a real element of luck to this as well. Like you said, Culpepper looked the part of the franchise QB. Had he become it, we wouldn't be having the discussion.
0 x

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6427
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 209

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by VikingLord » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:38 pm

Raptorman wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:11 pm
Next. There is a whole slew of NFL head coaches who call plays for both offense and defense. Kyle Shanahan, Andy Read, Mike McCarthy, and many more. This is not out of the ordinary. I don't see how this in any way interferes with the ability of anyone on offense or defense to do their jobs.
As with your previous response to my post, this is also true and I can't argue your point.

But, that wasn't my point.

My point is that a head coach needs to be the head coach. He is the guy who needs to have the overall plan for the team, the plan that can span different coordinators who will join and leave the team as the team evolves. He needs to design the whole picture and be the inspiration.

It's a subtle difference, but the head coaches you mention do that well. Sure, they may still call plays for the offense or defense, but they fill the head coach role. I don't see that with Zimmer. I see a defensive coordinator with him. A by-the-numbers guy who understands his half of the team and has a strong vision about what that should be, but on the offensive and overall side he doesn't. He's not as bad as Childress was, but he's not much better.

The team needs inspiration at head coach. It need dynamism. It needs someone with a strong overall vision who then hires coordinators who implement this vision. It's a step up from coordinator. A head coach can still fill the coordinator job (although that isn't ideal since that is an additional job and there is only so much time), but in doing so the head coach can't lose his vision or inspiration for the whole team. With Zimmer, he doesn't have that for the offensive side of the ball. When the Vikings released their defensive coordinator, did anyone even care? What the guy did is beyond me. It was almost a sacrificial termination, a way to shift blame from Zimmer to someone else rather than any real change in the defensive posture or direction of the team.

Anyway, whether a head coach takes effective control of one aspect of the team isn't the main point - it's whether the head coach takes effective control of the overall team that is. Zimmer hasn't done that with the Vikings.
1 x

User avatar
PsyDanny
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 9:24 am
Location: south minneapolis
x 13

Re: Once in Nineteen...

Post by PsyDanny » Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:41 pm

Mothman wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:27 pm
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:59 pm
I'm not a Niners fan, nor a hater.

But I cannot, under any circumstance root for Kansas City in a Super Bowl. No matter how hard I try, I can't shake the image of that stupid NFL Films bit of that idiot Hank Stram strutting up and down the sideline like a freaking used car salesman, running his fat mouth, "Sixty-five toss power trap ... ha ha! ... I told you, boys ... Sixty-five toss power trap." Aaaaaaaggggghhhh! Damn it. Now I want to kick a freaking puppy!
:lol: I knew you'd understand.
And if they were to ever play Green Bay in the Super Bowl, I'm pretty sure I'd be rooting for armageddon.
:rofl:
IDK about armageddon, but I'd probably go bowling that day. And I suck at bowling.
1 x
"My anterior orifice is forever causing me extreme difficulty;
therefore, I shall endeavor to acquire some self-control."