It's panic time

[losperros]

My suspicion proved accurate. In his post-Norv resignation presser Zimmer says: "Since Norv has been here I've given him almost 100% free will on everything they've done offensively."

http://www.vikings.com/media-vault/vide ... 802bc89611

(@ about 2:50 mark)

Thanks for the link. That answers that.

Now does Zimmer do the same with Shurmur?

[Purple Martin]

That isn't the only history that suggests such an approach is short-sighted and likely to fail. Just go back to the trade for Herschel Walker and it should be obvious that these moves rarely pay off.

The Vikes got to 5-0 with a simple formula - play lights-out on defense and mistake-free on offense. If they get back to executing that formula they'll start winning again. If they don't, or can't for some reason, then we should all accept the obvious fact that this isn't the version of the Vikings destined for greatness, try to enjoy the rest of the season, and hope Spielman and Zimmer can find a way to grow the team so that next year the obvious flaws are addressed and the team is solid and can truly compete for a title. This year's team is severely flawed for a variety of reasons (and to be fair to Spielman and Zimmer, not all of those reasons could be anticipated when the season began), so they're going to have to play essentially perfectly to go very far. They've shown they can play that way, though, so all hope is not lost provided they can get back to executing their winning formula.

A winning formula that requires perfect execution is a losing formula. Nobody can maintain perfection for long. This is the Leslie Frazier approach to football. If only his defenses could have executed perfectly all the time, maybe he'd still be here. Now we have this "perfection-required" philosophy on offense. No room for error, because the offensive game plan is to stay close and hope our defense keeps us close or wins it for us.
Find a weakness and exploit it and it all falls apart in dramatic fashion. And it has.

We need a new offensive philosophy that matches the Zimmer defensive approach. Play to win.Be creative. Keep the other team guessing. Be aggressive. If you are ahead by 2 or 3 scores a single mistake doesn't kill you. Perfection isn't required because you have a buffer.

[Mothman]

A winning formula that requires perfect execution is a losing formula. Nobody can maintain perfection for long. This is the Leslie Frazier approach to football. If only his defenses could have executed perfectly all the time, maybe he'd still be here. Now we have this "perfection-required" philosophy on offense.

That's not a Leslie Frazier philosophy, it's just fundamental to the sport. Zimmer expects his players to execute his scheme properly too and when they don't it leads to trouble. Look no further than Jordan Howard's long run Monday night for a good example of that.

That said, I agree with your point that a winning formula which requires mistake-free execution all the time is a losing formula. There has to be room for error. That's where talent comes in because it helps create a greater margin for error. To an extent, coaching helps to do that too, which leads back to this...

We need a new offensive philosophy that matches the Zimmer defensive approach. Play to win.Be creative. Keep the other team guessing. Be aggressive.

... and stock the unit with talent that matches the scheme. That's been a huge part of their defensive success under Zimmer. It requires vision and the Vikes haven't matched talent with vision on offense.

[Purple Martin]

... and stock the unit with talent that matches the scheme. That's been a huge part of their defensive success under Zimmer. It requires vision and the Vikes haven't matched talent with vision on offense.

I'm not convinced we don't have the talent to do this now, or that we haven't had it all along. So much of Norv's offense exposes our weak OL rather than play to our other strengths. We will have to see if anything changes schemewise under Shurmur, or if we still flop around like a wounded fish out of water.

[Mothman]

I'm not convinced we don't have the talent to do this now, or that we haven't had it all along. So much of Norv's offense exposes our weak OL rather than play to our other strengths. We will have to see if anything changes schemewise under Shurmur, or if we still flop around like a wounded fish out of water.

I'm sure we'll see some changes but a lot of the changes people are saying we'll see under Shurmur are adjustments Turner already made this season. You can only do so much to hide a bad offensive line.

I'm not sure what strengths are there that Turner hasn't attempted to utilize this season but I guess we'll find out. Maybe Shurmur can get more out of this offense over the remainder of the season than Turner has through the first 7 games by being less predictable and getting players like Patterson or (dare I say it?) Treadwell more involved. I'd certainly like to see a less predictable offense. Maybe a change in tempo will help. There are certainly things they can try.

[losperros]

I'm not convinced we don't have the talent to do this now, or that we haven't had it all along. So much of Norv's offense exposes our weak OL rather than play to our other strengths. We will have to see if anything changes schemewise under Shurmur, or if we still flop around like a wounded fish out of water.

I agree wholeheartedly about having some talent right now on the team, especially at WR.

My two cents: Turner ignored what could work for the team and instead focused on a one-way road with his system. It's a Brad Childress kind of mistake and a recipe for disaster. Close-minded thinking isn't vision. Schemes have to be flexible so the vision can be realized. For example, a team doesn't need just one method to run the ball well and utilize a complementary passing game. A coordinator has to consider the talent available and both their strengths and weaknesses, and then adapt a system for it. That's forward thinking and that's having vision.

[Texas Vike]

I agree wholeheartedly about having some talent right now on the team, especially at WR.

My two cents: Turner ignored what could work for the team and instead focused on a one-way road with his system. It's a Brad Childress kind of mistake and a recipe for disaster. Close-minded thinking isn't vision. Schemes have to be flexible so the vision can be realized. For example, a team doesn't need just one method to run the ball well and utilize a complementary passing game. A coordinator has to consider the talent available and both their strengths and weaknesses, and then adapt a system for it. That's forward thinking and that's having vision.

I would imagine that the WRs are happy with the change from Turner to Shurmur, especially Treadwell and Patterson.

[Norv Zimmer]

I would imagine that the WRs are happy with the change from Turner to Shurmur, especially Treadwell and Patterson.

And Diggs, Wright, and Theilen. The only one I don't think that will be happy is CJ.

[Purple Martin]

Can't imagine CJ was happy with the few snaps he was seeing. Maybe he'll see even fewer but there's no indication he was being favored by Norv in any way.

[Mothman]

I agree wholeheartedly about having some talent right now on the team, especially at WR.

They certainly have some talent on offense.

My two cents: Turner ignored what could work for the team and instead focused on a one-way road with his system. It's a Brad Childress kind of mistake and a recipe for disaster. Close-minded thinking isn't vision. Schemes have to be flexible so the vision can be realized. For example, a team doesn't need just one method to run the ball well and utilize a complementary passing game. A coordinator has to consider the talent available and both their strengths and weaknesses, and then adapt a system for it. That's forward thinking and that's having vision.

I think we may be using the word vision a little differently in this case, Craig. What I was trying to say is the offensive version of the "Zimmer defensive approach" Purple Martin mentioned would be to have a vision for the kind of offense the team wants to run and then build accordingly, finding players that fit the scheme and thus bringing the philosophy and talent in line with one another. I was trying differentiate that approach from adaptation. To me, the choice to hire Turner suggested the Vikings had a specific idea of what type of offense they wanted to run but unlike what they did on defense, they didn't logically assemble personnel on offense that would excel in Turner's system.

I think Turner could have done more to adapt to his circumstances and he definitely could have been less predictable but it seems like the offensive philosophy and personnel were at odds with each other from the start. I think Turner actually did make efforts to adapt to his personnel in each of his 3 seasons in Minnesota but he also remained far too stubborn and predictable for his own good. I'm not here to suggest he did a particularly good job as Vikings offensive coordinator because he didn't but I also think a failure of vision from his head coach and GM made his job much more difficult. It will be interesting to see how Shurmur does and if he does well, if he'll remain the OC beyond this season.

On a slightly related note (because it probably makes as much sense to put this here as it does anywhere else), after 7 games, Mike Wallace already has more yards and TDs for Baltimore than he had in Minnesota in 2015.

[Norv Zimmer]

Can't imagine CJ was happy with the few snaps he was seeing. Maybe he'll see even fewer but there's no indication he was being favored by Norv in any way.

I was kind of implying that all the other recievers are good at going over the middle and running quick passing plays, whereas CJ is more inclined to run deep routes.

[losperros]

I think we may be using the word vision a little differently in this case, Craig. What I was trying to say is the offensive version of the "Zimmer defensive approach" Purple Martin mentioned would be to have a vision for the kind of offense the team wants to run and then build accordingly, finding players that fit the scheme and thus bringing the philosophy and talent in line with one another. I was trying differentiate that approach from adaptation. To me, the choice to hire Turner suggested the Vikings had a specific idea of what type of offense they wanted to run but unlike what they did on defense, they didn't logically assemble personnel on offense that would excel in Turner's system.

I think Turner could have done more to adapt to his circumstances and he definitely could have been less predictable but it seems like the offensive philosophy and personnel were at odds with each other from the start. I think Turner actually did make efforts to adapt to his personnel in each of his 3 seasons in Minnesota but he also remained far too stubborn and predictable for his own good. I'm not here to suggest he did a particularly good job as Vikings offensive coordinator because he didn't but I also think a failure of vision from his head coach and GM made his job much more difficult. It will be interesting to see how Shurmur does and if he does well, if he'll remain the OC beyond this season.

I understand what you're saying and agree with you completely. But the "vision" I'm talking about is right now. This season. Today. That means constructing the vision on what the Vikings presently have and not what they don't have.

The Vikings never had the personnel to run Norv's offense, regardless whose fault it was. And Norv should have figured that out before 7 games into this season. I'm not cutting Turner any slack for that.

As for Zimmer, Spielman and whoever in the Vikings staff, I'm interested in what they're going to do now and in the future.

[Mothman]

I understand what you're saying and agree with you completely. But the "vision" I'm talking about is right now. This season. Today. That means constructing the vision on what the Vikings presently have and not what they don't have.

The Vikings never had the personnel to run Norv's offense, regardless whose fault it was. And Norv should have figured that out before 7 games into this season. I'm not cutting Turner any slack for that.

As for Zimmer, Spielman and whoever in the Vikings staff, I'm interested in what they're going to do now and in the future.

I am too and I sure as hell hope they demonstrate a better understanding of how to build an effective offense than they have so far.

[Iron Lion]

Hard to agree it's panic time. Only if the loss infects the hive mind, which it could since victory was imminent.

But you should consider that your other losses have a context to them. Philly humbled a hot Steelers team and my Lions laid an egg in Chicago. Things happen.

This game against the Lions you could lay on Walsh. I did read through the game day thread and saw a lot of that. But ultimately it's on Zimmer. Lions scored with 0:08 on the clock in the second quarter. Why no mayday defense where you just hold everybody like what Chip Kelly did? That forces us to kick the FG, that's -4 points which matches Walsh's blunders.

But the timeout with 0:27 in the fourth I agree with. You want time for six more plays in case the Lions commit PI on fourth down. Unless you plan on running it twice, the run that clock down to 0:10.

[autobon7]

On a slightly related note (because it probably makes as much sense to put this here as it does anywhere else), after 7 games, Mike Wallace already has more yards and TDs for Baltimore than he had in Minnesota in 2015.

I have taken notice of that as well......last year lots of folks said he was done, can't/don't wanna play anymore etc. Could it be Norv? I think so.