Rand: Vikings failing when it matters most

[losperros]

stealing management from the Pats would be quite the coup!

I'd love to see it happen. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Yep.
Nothing appreciably different than Frazier or chili

Who is the common denominator??????

I really hope we arent trying to compare Zimmer and Frazier

[Mothman]

I really hope we arent trying to compare Zimmer and Frazier

Read the post. It's not a comparison of the two coaches, although there would be nothing wrong with that.

[Jordysghost]

I really hope we arent trying to compare Zimmer and Frazier

Why?

[Mothman]

Why?

Based on past comments, I suspect he feels one is so superior to the other that the comparison isn't worth making. However, I really don't think comparing the two coaches is the point in this thread anyway.

[Jordysghost]

Based on past comments, I suspect he feels one is so superior to the other that the comparison isn't worth making.

I dont at all mind thinking Zimmer is superior to Frazier. (I do, for one) but I don't think that means one should abstain from a comparison.

I compare players and coaches to their better or worse previous counterparts all the time.

[mansquatch]

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stat ... game/2016/

To the point about tight margins. This information will state the obvious: The NFL is competitive!

Avg point differential by teams is -0.3. If you take out the top 2 and bottom 2 as outliers, the average is close to zero. if you look at only the top teams, including the top 2, the average is 3.17, or a field goal. (Why replacing Walsh was such a big deal...)

Point of this is that teams having narrow margins of error is not uncommon in the NFL. Most games are not blow outs. Dallas' margin of victory over the Vikings was 2 points. Basically the difference between win and loss is as we saw above, a field goal.

Now I agree, our offense is anemic and cannot overcome even the simple mistakes as well as other teams in the league and that is a problem. But the idea that narrow margins are somehow a problem in the NFL denies the data. Most games are close and the teams that win are those that show consistent grit and make fewer mistakes / more plays when it counts. (This is a marked change from Frasier to Zimmer btw.)

I'm still not persuaded that if we had our 5 offensive players healthy this wouldn't be a 10-2 team. The corrollary of that comparison is why it is important. If you accept that having them back makes us 10-2, then it is reasonable to conclude that not having them is a major reason why we are 6-6. Therefore the talent isn't the issue so much as the durability.

[Mothman]

I dont at all mind thinking Zimmer is superior to Frazier. (I do, for one) but I don't think that means one should abstain from a comparison.

I don't either. There's value in it and sometime we can learn from such comparisons.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Based on past comments, I suspect he feels one is so superior to the other that the comparison isn't worth making. However, I really don't think comparing the two coaches is the point in this thread anyway.

That's exactly what I think

[Jordysghost]

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stat ... game/2016/

To the point about tight margins. This information will state the obvious: The NFL is competitive!

Avg point differential by teams is -0.3. If you take out the top 2 and bottom 2 as outliers, the average is close to zero. if you look at only the top teams, including the top 2, the average is 3.17, or a field goal. (Why replacing Walsh was such a big deal...)

Point of this is that teams having narrow margins of error is not uncommon in the NFL. Most games are not blow outs. Dallas' margin of victory over the Vikings was 2 points. Basically the difference between win and loss is as we saw above, a field goal.

Now I agree, our offense is anemic and cannot overcome even the simple mistakes as well as other teams in the league and that is a problem. But the idea that narrow margins are somehow a problem in the NFL denies the data. Most games are close and the teams that win are those that show consistent grit and make fewer mistakes / more plays when it counts. (This is a marked change from Frasier to Zimmer btw.)

I'm still not persuaded that if we had our 5 offensive players healthy this wouldn't be a 10-2 team. The corrollary of that comparison is why it is important. If you accept that having them back makes us 10-2, then it is reasonable to conclude that not having them is a major reason why we are 6-6. Therefore the talent isn't the issue so much as the durability.

Injuries are awful, i feel my team would be in a significant more advantagous position if they were less decimated as well. Wish injuries werent part of the game, but unfortunately they are.

[Jordysghost]

That's exactly what I think

At this point, that is vastly undeserved imo.

I agree Zimmer is better then Frazier, but he still could stabd to put more distance between them.

[Mothman]

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stat ... game/2016/

To the point about tight margins. This information will state the obvious: The NFL is competitive!

Avg point differential by teams is -0.3. If you take out the top 2 and bottom 2 as outliers, the average is close to zero. if you look at only the top teams, including the top 2, the average is 3.17, or a field goal. (Why replacing Walsh was such a big deal...)

Point of this is that teams having narrow margins of error is not uncommon in the NFL. Most games are not blow outs. Dallas' margin of victory over the Vikings was 2 points. Basically the difference between win and loss is as we saw above, a field goal.

Now I agree, our offense is anemic and cannot overcome even the simple mistakes as well as other teams in the league and that is a problem. But the idea that narrow margins are somehow a problem in the NFL denies the data.

I didn't deny the data. I pointed directly to It and even included a link.

Removing the outliers and pointing to a league average without them misses the point. The idea is to be one of the teams that's above average, not to be another average team floating around in the middle of the pack. Those outliers at the top tend to be the best teams and the goal is to be the best, correct? Consequently, hovering around the league average for a prolonged period of time is less a defense than an indictment.

Narrow margins are problematic for a team like the Vikings because they reflect a middling team, not an excellent team. Look at Seattle's average scoring margins since 2012. Look at NE's for most of this century. The Vikings need to reach a level where they are one of those positive outliers at the top, a team that gets to the Super Bowl at least once in a while and hopefully wins it.

Most games are close and the teams that win are those that show consistent grit and make fewer mistakes / more plays when it counts. (This is a marked change from Frasier to Zimmer btw.)

You could have fooled me.

I'm still not persuaded that if we had our 5 offensive players healthy this wouldn't be a 10-2 team. The corrollary of that comparison is why it is important. If you accept that having them back makes us 10-2, then it is reasonable to conclude that not having them is a major reason why we are 6-6.

Unfortunately, I see no compelling reason to believe the team would be 10-2 with those players, even though I think Peterson would make a positive difference.

[Mothman]

That's exactly what I think

Nailed it!

[mansquatch]

Jim, Frasier era and Zimmer era couldn't be more different on defense.

PA:
2011: 28.1 (!)
2012: 21.8 (Frasier's best year)
2013 30.0 (!!!!)
2014: 21.4 (Zimmer's first year, worst year, and still better than Frasier)
2015: 18.9
2016: 17.4

In 2016 Seattle is at 16.2. NE and BAL are at 17.3 and the Vikings are at 17.4. That is the top 4 in the NFL. DAL is #5 at 19.0 PPG. An obvious conclusion here is this: How much better would our PPG be with better offensive play?

PF:
2011: 21.3
2012: 23.7
2013: 24.4
2014: 20.3
2015: 22.8
2016: 19.4

There is no doubt the offense has gotten worse. The three worst years on the list were year's in which AP got hurt. OL woes mark all three seasons since Zimmer came here, most notably injuries. After 2015 they tried to fix it and instead more injuries piled up. It isn't lost on me that Ponder's best season was almost a full PPG better than the TB era. That year was also the 2000 yard season, so I don't think it is the QB...

Should be worth noting that AP is probably worth 2-3 PF all by himself. Fixing Blair Walsh and having AP healthy is probably enough to swing 3 losses this season to wins.

If I am going to fault Spielman it is in over drafting CP84 (although he is showing signs of that deal maybe not being AS BAD) and wasting the recent pick on Treadwell. However, on Treadwell I think there is an argument that going OL there would have not made a difference this season given recent OL trends league wide. Still we had bigger needs that WR and Spielman should have anticipated that. They've obviusly not done a good job in bringing OL talent up to NFL speed. However, they also have built a roster that is highly competitive in the NFL. I might counter the OL argument by saying they are healthy RB and non headcase Kicker away from potentially being a #1 seed in the NFC. That has merit, the Point stats support it just as they do the OL argument.

So back to Ricky. If you accept my premise then he has built a roster capable of a 13-14 win season, playing elite defense and special teams. This is why I'm against firing Spielman. It seems extremely likely that a replacement will be WORSE. 13-14 wins in cream of the crop in the NFL. Furthermore, you have to ask the opportunity cost question. (I've brought this up before.) If swapped out one of the past moves (ergo the "miss steps") would this roster be as good as it is today? That is really the question of a GM isn't it?

[Mothman]

Jim, Frasier era and Zimmer era couldn't be more different on defense.

I appreciate the stats but those particulars aren't the point. To clarify: it's not about comparing the two coaches. The point is that the margin of error has remained thin under Spielman. Gains on defense under Zimmer have been offset by declines on offense.

In 2016 Seattle is at 16.2. NE and BAL are at 17.3 and the Vikings are at 17.4. That is the top 4 in the NFL. DAL is #5 at 19.0 PPG. An obvious conclusion here is this: How much better would our PPG be with better offensive play?

Possibly much better but we don't know how much better the offense would be without the injuries. There's literally no way to know what the outcomes would have been if the Vikings had been relatively free of injuries. However, on offense they've fallen from #29 in 2015 to #31 in 2016. That's not a long fall and their previous performances shouldn't lead us to believe they would have been far better if healthy.

So back to Ricky. If you accept my premise then he has built a roster capable of a 13-14 win season, playing elite defense and special teams.

But I don't accept that premise and I think the evidence speaks for itself. This roster hasn't approached that many wins and it didn't win 13 or 14 last year either. The only Vikings roster that's come close to the 13 win mark since Spielman's been in Minnesota was the 2009 roster and the key member of that roster was Favre, who was acquired at the 11th hour, a fortuitous move that seemed driven more by desperation than foresight.

This is why I'm against firing Spielman. It seems extremely likely that a replacement will be WORSE.

There's no way to predict that either. I see no more reason to believe a replacement would be worse than to believe he'd be better. That seems entirely dependent on the individual and situation.

13-14 wins in cream of the crop in the NFL.

You're referring to an entirely hypothetical 13-14 wins. It's just not convincing to use a mark the team has never achieved under Rick Spielman as an argument for keeping Rick Spielman.

Furthermore, you have to ask the opportunity cost question. (I've brought this up before.) If swapped out one of the past moves (ergo the "miss steps") would this roster be as good as it is today? That is really the question of a GM isn't it?

I think the real measure of a GM is if he can build a genuine Super Bowl contender and a team with a good chance of sustaining success over a period of years. So far, the answer has been "no".

There's no way to definitively answer your opportunity cost question. It's certainly possible that different moves could have yielded a better result. Things might have ended up worse too.