The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

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

User avatar
Angels Wings
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:39 pm
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
x 3

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by Angels Wings » Sun Oct 25, 2020 10:31 pm

I'm in the "blow it up" camp...

I would love to see this be the end result of blowing it up

Image

Realistically, I don't think that this team will be that bad enough to be able to draft him though. :(
0 x
For those with wings, fly to your dreams

User avatar
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2041
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
x 84

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by TSonn » Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:03 pm

I expected a 7-9 season at the start just based on the facts that we lost our 2 starting CBs and we didn't improve the OL/Kirk mobility issues. So IMO we were, best case, an average/bad team - definitely no playoffs, definitely not a championship team.

But it's been abundantly clear that Zimmer's defense is a shell of its former self (we can argue if it's because of the players we lost OR if Zim is just past his expiration date). The offense starts, sputters, stops - just no consistency. And Kirk is having his worst season as a pro.

The only way you can maybe view this team as NOT a dumpster fire, is if you think the team already knew in training camp that they were going to be a 7-9 team at best and this season is a throwaway season (COVID) so they just aren't putting in the work.

If that's not the case - we're really bad. And I hope we stay really bad. Let's be really bad or really good.

Don't mess it up by getting to 5 or 6 wins, Zim.
0 x

User avatar
Hunter Morrow
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5651
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 am
x 10

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by Hunter Morrow » Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:29 am

I'm just dreading that we've spent so much time dropping the ball in so many ways. On QB, the QB is overpaid, underperforming and hitting the 32 year old Wall. There is no heir apparent and no serviceable backup with Super Bowl potential, none. The starter is stinking and the bench has nobody I buy into, one of the worst backup QB situations in the whole league. That's been a problem for a while now. The O line, especially the interior line, has been a major problem with this time for like, how long? 10 years? If its an institutional problem, you have to change the institution by cleaning out the GM and front offices and coaches that went with this crap for so long. We always pay a ton of money to the RBs and feature them so much and we just paid a fortune for a RB with an injury history. That's a long term mistake, the oldheads who keep doing that have to go! We have a defense halfway between rebuild and retool, this halfway pregnant defense, and it stinks! Its filled with young people and rookies as well as old people that are going to get dished or traded or cut due to the cap hits of Cousins and Cook. The defense looks really bad going forward as well. The special terms? Long term problems in coverage, returning and kicking. Gotta blow it up to fix that long term problem now. Construction, coaching and play in all 3 facets of football looks to be very, very poor and when its all going like that, its going to take time to right all these long term wrongs and be a presentable football team again.

We've got HUGE PROBLEMS and we gotta stop BSing ourselves with, oh, we're not that bad, and we don't need to do anything drastic, and next year this is going to come together and win the SB. Because it won't! Spielman/Zimmer and muddling about for 15 years like the Marvin Lewis Bengals is NOT THE WAY TO BE.

So I think we need to bite the bullet, blow it all up and try to set ourselves up to have a super bowl win about 5 or so years from now. The blueprint, roadmap, the plan, something new, feasible and BELIEVABLE. That I can buy into! I've got no buy-in with Spielman as GM and Zimmer as Head Coach. That's not the plan to win the Super Bowl, I don't think that will ever win the Super Bowl here or anywhere. Forever this franchise has been win win win, now now now, we're so close, we just need one or two pieces, blah blah blah. Historically, if a GM/Head Coach tandem went this long without even making the Super Bowl, much less winning it, and was missing the playoffs more often than making it, it'd be out on its ####, not EXTENDED the way the Wilfs did. I want a teardown and a build up and a long term plan predicated on the QB and passing offense and to be in a super bowl and WIN IT. No more oldness, staleness, defense and RB old hat crap and impatience.
4 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 338

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by StumpHunter » Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:55 am

TSonn wrote:
Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:03 pm
I expected a 7-9 season at the start just based on the facts that we lost our 2 starting CBs and we didn't improve the OL/Kirk mobility issues. So IMO we were, best case, an average/bad team - definitely no playoffs, definitely not a championship team.

But it's been abundantly clear that Zimmer's defense is a shell of its former self (we can argue if it's because of the players we lost OR if Zim is just past his expiration date). The offense starts, sputters, stops - just no consistency. And Kirk is having his worst season as a pro.

The only way you can maybe view this team as NOT a dumpster fire, is if you think the team already knew in training camp that they were going to be a 7-9 team at best and this season is a throwaway season (COVID) so they just aren't putting in the work.

If that's not the case - we're really bad. And I hope we stay really bad. Let's be really bad or really good.

Don't mess it up by getting to 5 or 6 wins, Zim.
I think you look at what NE did this off season, where they let Brady walk knowing when they did that they were going to have a horrible QB. Basically giving up on this season and not paying Brady because even with him it was not a Super Bowl contending team.

The Vikings should have known that as well, and I just don't understand why they blew up the team on defense like they were going into rebuild mode and gave their LT an ultimatum to take a pay cut or be cut which screams rebuild. Then they extended Cousins, traded for Ngakoue, and franchised Harris, three moves that hurt this team's ability to rebuild.

Those are three moves that Bill Bellicheck never makes, because it hurts the team's future chances at a championship at the expense of maybe getting to mediocrity in the present.
3 x

User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 105

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by VikingPaul73 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:32 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:55 am

The Vikings should have known that as well, and I just don't understand why they blew up the team on defense like they were going into rebuild mode and gave their LT an ultimatum to take a pay cut or be cut which screams rebuild. Then they extended Cousins, traded for Ngakoue, and franchised Harris, three moves that hurt this team's ability to rebuild.
you are correct, it was head scratching and totally inconsistent. The only explanations I can come up with:

1. Incompetence and lack of a clear and coherent vision for the direction of the franchise. There is past evidence that supports this example- for example, signing Defilippo (trendy pass happy OC) and Cousins to a huge deal, and then Zimmer after 4 weeks screaming to "pound the rock" because the Defilippo / Cousins style offense didn't complement his D properly. So why hire them in the first place? Are Zim and Rick just not on the same page?? Or did they not recognize that the Defilippo / Cousins style offense would not be a game management / ball control style? Inexcusable, IMO.

2. Arrogance of Mike "I've never had a bad defense" Zimmer. They thought they could blow up the defense and still be competitive due to Zim's "genius", and that he could compensate for young corners with experienced Safeties. with an experienced offense and a young D that improved over the course of the year....maybe they could slip into the playoffs and by then the Corners would have a year of experience and playing much better. And then who knows? This would explain Harris, but I just can't see the Ngakoue trade as anything other than a panic trade. If this was their overall strategy, then all I can say is that they were just wrong, spectacularly WRONG. this defense is really bad right now....although to be fair, no one could have predicted Barr, Pierce, Hunter so who knows maybe without these injuries/opt outs the strategy could have worked? Heck, the Lions could make the playoffs this year!!!!

all of that said, I am firmly in the "fire everyone and start over" category
2 x

psjordan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:01 am
x 37

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by psjordan » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:25 am

VikingPaul73 wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:32 am
1. Incompetence and lack of a clear and coherent vision for the direction of the franchise. There is past evidence that supports this example- for example, signing Defilippo (trendy pass happy OC) and Cousins to a huge deal, and then Zimmer after 4 weeks screaming to "pound the rock" because the Defilippo / Cousins style offense didn't complement his D properly. So why hire them in the first place? Are Zim and Rick just not on the same page?? Or did they not recognize that the Defilippo / Cousins style offense would not be a game management / ball control style? Inexcusable, IMO.

2. Arrogance of Mike "I've never had a bad defense" Zimmer. They thought they could blow up the defense and still be competitive due to Zim's "genius", and that he could compensate for young corners with experienced Safeties. with an experienced offense and a young D that improved over the course of the year....maybe they could slip into the playoffs and by then the Corners would have a year of experience and playing much better. And then who knows? This would explain Harris, but I just can't see the Ngakoue trade as anything other than a panic trade. If this was their overall strategy, then all I can say is that they were just wrong, spectacularly WRONG. this defense is really bad right now....although to be fair, no one could have predicted Barr, Pierce, Hunter so who knows maybe without these injuries/opt outs the strategy could have worked? Heck, the Lions could make the playoffs this year!!!!

all of that said, I am firmly in the "fire everyone and start over" category
I agree with the sentiment, just a few mitigating points:
1) I'm guessing Zim felt comfortable letting the vet DB's go since (at the time) on paper he had Hunter (and Pierce) to help protect them. The Ngakoue trade IMO was not a panic move, it was a "we still have to protect rookie DB's" move. And really, a #2 and a conditional #5 for one of the best young pass rushers in football is not a crazy price, even considering at some point he may leave and we'd likely get a #3 compensatory pick. I'm not sure I'm on board with all that strategy, but it also wasn't the worst thought process in the world IMO.
2) I've read from a few outlets (back a few years and also recently) that Zim never wanted Cousins. Don't know if that is true or false, but it's certainly feasible.
3) Wasn't too long ago most in DET were calling for Patricia's head. This is how fickle the NFL is. Had Gurley not scored yesterday, DET fans would probably be back to calling for Patricia's head.

My angst still mostly lies with our current coaching staff's inability to develop players. Just my opinion. Everything everyone has posted in the prior 10 posts applied to the Dolphins a year back, two years back. The big difference is the MIA coaching staff is not only developing those drafted rookies, it would appear that everyone on that team wants to bust arse for the coaching staff. Big difference from the current Vikes as I see it.
1 x

User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 105

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by VikingPaul73 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:05 am

Good points....

on #1, I think you make a good point, assuming they thought they were contenders this year. If they didn't think they would be contenders, then I think it's a bad strategy to rent a player for 1 year for a 2nd round pick. If they DID think they were contenders, then they just seriously miscalculated the ability of this team. And remember, this trade was after they knew that Pierce opted out and Hunter was injured. Was it realistic to think that a team this D (without Pierce or Hunter) and the dreadful OL was a contender?

#2 - that is interesting, and wouldn't shock me if true and it would explain A LOT. It just goes to show how critical it is that HC and GM are on the same page.

#3 - fair point. I would argue that Zim/Rick have had more time and resources from the Wilfs than Patricia has had in Detroit. But your point is taken for sure
0 x

User avatar
VikingPaul73
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:07 pm
x 105

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by VikingPaul73 » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:15 am

thinking a bit more on your point #2.... I wonder if Rick and Zim were aligned on the Ngakoue trade? He didn't really seem to fit the Zimmer "stop run first" style of D. Thoughts?

Also, am I the only one on the board who, after 6 weeks, was FINALLY able to spell and pronounce "Ngakoue" correctly, right before they traded him!!?? :lol: :lol:
0 x

User avatar
TSonn
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2041
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:52 am
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
x 84

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by TSonn » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:40 am

StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:55 am
TSonn wrote:
Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:03 pm
I expected a 7-9 season at the start just based on the facts that we lost our 2 starting CBs and we didn't improve the OL/Kirk mobility issues. So IMO we were, best case, an average/bad team - definitely no playoffs, definitely not a championship team.

But it's been abundantly clear that Zimmer's defense is a shell of its former self (we can argue if it's because of the players we lost OR if Zim is just past his expiration date). The offense starts, sputters, stops - just no consistency. And Kirk is having his worst season as a pro.

The only way you can maybe view this team as NOT a dumpster fire, is if you think the team already knew in training camp that they were going to be a 7-9 team at best and this season is a throwaway season (COVID) so they just aren't putting in the work.

If that's not the case - we're really bad. And I hope we stay really bad. Let's be really bad or really good.

Don't mess it up by getting to 5 or 6 wins, Zim.
I think you look at what NE did this off season, where they let Brady walk knowing when they did that they were going to have a horrible QB. Basically giving up on this season and not paying Brady because even with him it was not a Super Bowl contending team.

The Vikings should have known that as well, and I just don't understand why they blew up the team on defense like they were going into rebuild mode and gave their LT an ultimatum to take a pay cut or be cut which screams rebuild. Then they extended Cousins, traded for Ngakoue, and franchised Harris, three moves that hurt this team's ability to rebuild.

Those are three moves that Bill Bellicheck never makes, because it hurts the team's future chances at a championship at the expense of maybe getting to mediocrity in the present.
We also released our best guard last year in Kline.
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 338

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by StumpHunter » Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:18 am

TSonn wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:40 am
StumpHunter wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:55 am


I think you look at what NE did this off season, where they let Brady walk knowing when they did that they were going to have a horrible QB. Basically giving up on this season and not paying Brady because even with him it was not a Super Bowl contending team.

The Vikings should have known that as well, and I just don't understand why they blew up the team on defense like they were going into rebuild mode and gave their LT an ultimatum to take a pay cut or be cut which screams rebuild. Then they extended Cousins, traded for Ngakoue, and franchised Harris, three moves that hurt this team's ability to rebuild.

Those are three moves that Bill Bellicheck never makes, because it hurts the team's future chances at a championship at the expense of maybe getting to mediocrity in the present.
We also released our best guard last year in Kline.
Bill dumped Kline too.

He is still available if we want him, since 0 teams even showed interest in signing him. That move I actually agreed with.
0 x

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6728
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 351

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by VikingLord » Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:43 pm

PacificNorseWest wrote:
Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:44 am
Let's all just calm down for a minute...call the audible: "easy, easy, easy"
I appreciate what you tried to do with this topic Pacific.

I guess for me, it comes down to what I believe the longer-term development potential of the overall team is and where it is weak relative to the teams that are more competitive, along with assessing how quickly those weak areas can be/are likely to be improved.

Offensively, the weak spots on the team are the play of the QB in certain situations and the interior of the offensive line. The team has talent at the skill positions to compete, and if the QB gets adequate complementary play from his OL and running game, he can play well enough for the offense to be competitive.

The OL can obviously be improved, either via the draft or free agency, and I think Spielman has attempted to improve it using both approaches, but with mixed success. For example Bradbury looked like a solid first round pick at center, but he hasn't developed into a consistent player yet. I don't believe the Vikings have adequate talent at either guard position and continue to place bets on players who are not likely to develop at the position. I don't believe Ezra Cleveland is going to become a good guard. I thought they drafted him to take over at LT but apparently circumstances have forced him inside. At least, I hope it is circumstances and not indicative of a longer term plan. O'Neill and Reiff are easily the two best players on the OL. If the interior players played at the same level as the two tackles, the line would be good. Can Spielman fix these issues? Hard to say on Bradbury. By this time in his second year one would hope he's ready, but the offseason was whacky and maybe that held him back a bit. At the guard positions, I don't see a ray of hope that is a member of the active roster.

What bothers me the most about the situation on the offensive line, though, is that Spielman must know the limitations of his starting QB. He extended him for big money, literally banking his future on Cousins, while at the same time heading into the season with substantial question marks along the interior OL. I knew when the Vikings ended up with Elflein as their starting RG it was going to be a long season. Cousins simply can't overcome spotty pass blocking. He just doesn't have that extra Spidey sense that allows the great QBs to escape pressure, nor is he particularly creative or patient when he gets flustered. For him to be successful, and for the extension he signed to make sense, he needs a very good to great OL in front of him. Spielman has utterly failed to provide that, and not just over a single offseason, but over multiple offseasons. This puts me solidly in the pessimistic camp going forward.

Defensively, the Vikings went into this season knowing they had almost no experience at all CB positions and with big dollars invested into the safety position. As I noted in another post, I can't recall another NFL team being content to do that, especially in the more modern era where passing is an emphasis for most teams. While I think that Spielman did attempt to make investments along the DL as well to help cover up that obvious weakness in the secondary, and I do think he got a bad break with Hunter not being able to play, I also think he knew the defense was in trouble well before the season started. Instead of going out and finding some veteran help at CB, he allowed the team to go into the season with what they had, most likely hoping that between solid front 7 play and the offense controlling the ball and scoring points, the weakness at CB could be covered up long enough for those players to develop and stabilize the defense. It just hasn't turned out, and while I do think the CB play will continue to improve, I think it will be too little too late. Further, I've seen nothing to indicate that either Gladney or Dantzler is going to develop into a shutdown corner, much less a competent corner. The jury is out on both, but neither is flashing anything special so far from what I've seen.

I think Spielman placed a lot of risky bets and most, if not all, have gone south. While I can't fault him for all of them going south, some of them deserve more scrutiny than others. Like extending a QB with known deficiencies, extending a RB with known injury issues, and failing to provide at least one veteran CB to help anchor the defensive secondary. These are all moves that a wiser and more patient GM would have avoided making I believe. Pierce opting out due to a pandemic, Hunter and Barr being injured, are not really his fault nor could he be expected to compensate for those things. There is some blur in the picture when it comes to accountability for the current state of affairs on the team. But I do think there is also enough clarity to show that even if one agrees more with the optimistic points you made, and even if things do improve next year, that improvement won't be enough to get this team solidly into the Superbowl conversation. At best we're looking at a return to slightly-above-average mediocrity, which I don't think anyone here finds acceptable. I don't see how Spielman and Zimmer turn this team into a Superbowl contender with the moves that have been made.
4 x

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Inductee
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
x 209

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by Texas Vike » Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:49 pm

Excellent post. I have a bit more optimism for Dantzler and especially Gladney than you, but I agree with every other assessment.
0 x

User avatar
StpViking
Backup
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:20 pm
Location: STP, MN
x 18

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by StpViking » Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:45 pm

Spielman and his scout team have shown no ability to recognize the QB position. Ironically in a game called Football, the guy that throws it is the most important piece. Spielman should be the first to go. Whoever replaces him better understand the QB position and how to best to build a team around him.

Zimm is 2nd. I had thought about maybe keeping him as DC, but his gimmicky double gap blitz is like Buddy Ryan's 46 defense, when it works it's great, when it fails, there's a lot of open space for the receiver to run. The Zimm era is over for me.

Any players we keep on the team, it better serve as helping develop the new franchise QB, otherwise it's a waste of time.
0 x
White 8DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee! Waz Up!

User avatar
RandyMoss84
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:12 pm
x 375

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by RandyMoss84 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:29 am

StpViking wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:45 pm
Spielman and his scout team have shown no ability to recognize the QB position. Ironically in a game called Football, the guy that throws it is the most important piece. Spielman should be the first to go. Whoever replaces him better understand the QB position and how to best to build a team around him.

Zimm is 2nd. I had thought about maybe keeping him as DC, but his gimmicky double gap blitz is like Buddy Ryan's 46 defense, when it works it's great, when it fails, there's a lot of open space for the receiver to run. The Zimm era is over for me.

Any players we keep on the team, it better serve as helping develop the new franchise QB, otherwise it's a waste of time.
I do not want Zimmer as defensive coordinator, I do not want Zimmer associated with the Vikings anymore, let him go to the Bengals
0 x

FredJohnson22
Practice Squad
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:35 pm
x 2

Re: The Vikings aren't THAT bad...blow it up or nah?

Post by FredJohnson22 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:28 am

There really isn't a "blow it up" in the NFL. The owners are the only ones who can risk tanking. There are only a handful of players on each team that aren't playing to stay in the league every year. The same goes for coaches. It would take a pretty sizeable, public effort to "tank". THAT would be a big problem for the NFL's image, reputation and value.
It's more likely the team will "go in another direction" by trading or cutting players for draft picks or cheaper players. Call it a soft tank.
1 x