Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

[IrishViking]

So my general take here is that folks agree that at the very least, Zimmer, being the head coach isn't able to fully cede responsibility for the struggles of the offense but its questionable how much was "his fault"given the autonomy he gave Norv. Which by itself is a separate problem he needs to address. That seems fair.


As for the struggles on defense I honestly think what happened is the defense just said "F@#$ You" to the offense. Its not nice, its not professional, its not pretty. But after a full year of watching the Offense fail to capitalize or finding new and exciting ways to fail to score and not being able to move the ball on shorts ALL Year they quit.

Lets stop with the rosed colored glasses and pedestals; 95% of these athletes are not "Philosopher kings" or "warrior poets" most of them got here by being extremely emotional, passionate, and giving up everything else in their lives to focus on being great at a sport. It is their life, their passion, their livlihood. They are paid a great deal of money to care about this sport. Sitting on the sidelines with front row seats watching your temmates suck #### repeatedly and screw you over is annoying. I have played team sports at a very competitive level. The first few times you cheerlead but eventually you start muttering "for f@#$ sake, again?" under your breath and not hoping they will figure it out for them, but wanting them to figure out because its just stupid annoying and you start to hate them for it. "hate" in sports terms. You don't actually hate the person, you hate the idea of having to depend on them for anything.

That said, my guess is Zimmer wanted to stay the course as a coach should and depend on the highly paid offensive "professionals" to do their job. The defense decided they would play their way and did what they did.


I still think Zimmer can be a very good head coach, and I don't think we have a full blown mutiny on our hands. What I think we have is a dozen or so players who let the season get to them and a more experienced head coach could have prevented it.

[Jordysghost]

The Packers never lost their best player. The Viking did in week 2. The Bears have been putrid this year, so they show that Injuries are an excuse for a putrid season. Do you think the Packers would be looking at the Division crown right now if Rogers had been hurt in week 2? Or is that not an excuse? Every roster is different and every roster is weak in different areas. By week 5 the Vikings Roster had over half of it's offense manned by backups. That is not normal.

I've been stressing this a lot: It is very difficult to gauge future performance based on this season. 50% of the offense was played most of the season by backups AND they switched systems in their 7th game. In light of these factors it is very hard to see the prior two years plus this year add up to any kind of trend. Some things are the same, others are not. You have to acknowledge the differences vs. just saying "It was the Vikings." Well actually I guess you don't, just do not expect me to find many places to agree with you.

On the Defense what changed? Did the physical talent suddenly fall out of bed? Or is it purely mental? If it is mental then there is reason for optimism. ST seems to be on a pretty good track as well. Can the offense be better just by being healthy? Maybe. If you say no, then based on what? 1/2 the players playing right now are backups. If you say yes, then based on what? Again, half the players playing are backups. I think they will be better simply because half the guys playing are backups. The question is how much better? I don't think they are going to score 30 points a game, but can they get to 25? I don't know.

Losing Rodgers would be more debilitating then AP, or nearly any franchise QB, thats not really a fair comparison. Half of Vikings fans seem to think he is only a detriment to the O.

Again, its pretty clear the performance of the D is a clear cause for concern, they have pleyed decidedly belpw their talent level imo.

[Jordysghost]

There is little doubt that they were set up for a run in 2016 before the parade of injuries started.

Thielen and Patterson will be up for FA this year. Thielen will command a hefty payday. CP84 adds a lot to this club even if it is somewhat unconventional. Not sure how that one is going to play out. If they are going to go for more of a short passing type offense I really want to think he'd be a critical component given his ability to make guys miss tackles.

To me a lot of this points to AP getting asked to reduce his cap hit or be gone all together. (I think we might see them grab a veteran RB in FA this year.) Some of the OL stuff will fall off or be reworked as well. Kalil is not going to be an 8 digit hit in 2017 if he is still on the team. The cap going up by $10MM will help also...

I think they have another year to make a run, possibly two, but then they are going to be bogged down by big defensive contracts. They need to be careful fishing FA to fix their OL woes or they will end up with dead money and an inability to sign core defensive guys. Rhodes is going to get a monster payday I believe next year. I really think health is a key component, that and can they get that OL to something near middle of the pack so they can mix up their offense more?

Little doubt to you maybe, I doubted your D could consistantly dominate like the other top Ds and I was right.

[Mothman]

Losing Rodgers would be more debilitating then AP, or nearly any franchise QB, thats not really a fair comparison. Half of Vikings fans seem to think he is only a detriment to the O.

They're wrong.

The comparison is fair. The value of the two players to their respective offenses is different but Peterson has long been the key to the Vikings offensive success and that was true last season as well. Losing him was a major blow to the team. Whether it's equal to the blow losing Rodgers would be to the Packers is immaterial. The point is the Vikings lost their key player on offense.

[Jordysghost]

They're wrong.

The comparison is fair. The value of the two players to their respective offenses is different but Peterson has long been the key to the Vikings offensive success and that was true last season as well. Losing him was a major blow to the team. Whether it's equal to the blow losing Rodgers would be to the Packers is immaterial. The point is the Vikings lost their key player on offense.

Just to clarify, I wasnt trying to compare him to losing Rodgers as much as just any franchise QB out there.

[mansquatch]

My main point with that statement was to invalidate the idea that Injuries do not matter as well as the idea that the Vikings injuries could/should be overcome. Green Bay has not lost any of the critical players to it's offense which is the strength of it's entire team. Thus the comparison to MN is not apples to apples.

Also, the idea that offense doesn't impact defensive performance and vice versa is just idiotic. I seriously wonder if someone who thinks that even watches the games? If you watch any amount of football you know teams play differently when they are down by 2+ scores.

The Vikings play more conservatively in part because of the quality of their defense. This season we watched a defense operate on a razor thin margin for error because the injury riddled offense was so unproductive. Imagine how much better they could be if they are on the field for 3-5 fewer minutes and take 10 fewer snaps? Those margins get bigger and their ranking will increase. Not hard to see why people are still bullish on this team for 2017.

FWIW, the NFC is a giant turd this season. My prediction is that the Giants or Seahawks will emerge as the NFC Champion since right now they are the only two teams in the hunt that can play legitimate playoff caliber defense. None of the darling teams, like Dallas, play anything that resembles truly post season competitive defense. Giants are the most balanced team in the NFC right now, it is really looking like a season where the Giants sneak in and steal another ring. They are coming into the post season hot which matters.

[Jordysghost]

My main point with that statement was to invalidate the idea that Injuries do not matter as well as the idea that the Vikings injuries could/should be overcome. Green Bay has not lost any of the critical players to it's offense which is the strength of it's entire team. Thus the comparison to MN is not apples to apples.

Also, the idea that offense doesn't impact defensive performance and vice versa is just idiotic. I seriously wonder if someone who thinks that even watches the games? If you watch any amount of football you know teams play differently when they are down by 2+ scores.

The Vikings play more conservatively in part because of the quality of their defense. This season we watched a defense operate on a razor thin margin for error because the injury riddled offense was so unproductive. Imagine how much better they could be if they are on the field for 3-5 fewer minutes and take 10 fewer snaps? Those margins get bigger and their ranking will increase. Not hard to see why people are still bullish on this team for 2017.

FWIW, the NFC is a giant turd this season. My prediction is that the Giants or Seahawks will emerge as the NFC Champion since right now they are the only two teams in the hunt that can play legitimate playoff caliber defense. None of the darling teams, like Dallas, play anything that resembles truly post season competitive defense. Giants are the most balanced team in the NFC right now, it is really looking like a season where the Giants sneak in and steal another ring. They are coming into the post season hot which matters.

That first part is wrong, but ill save you all the aggravation.

Nobody said the defense and offense dont affect eachother, but but thet also arent entirely reliant on eachother, and blaming issues on one side of the ball on the other is a conveniant excuse.

Also, I disagree with your idea that the Giants and Squawks are the only teams capable playing championship caliber D. (Not to mention, those very Giajts proved that if you get hot, your D can go from 32nd in the league to the best D in the playoffs, as they did that)

The Giants arent very hot right now and it might cost them if they draw a hot GB team in the wildcard round, I have great respect for the things Eli has done, but I dont think this is another ring for him.

I think the Packers, Boys, and Squawks are still the class of the NFC, Atlanta is a non factor. The Hot team and QB, the most dominant team in the league (Boys), and the established cream of the crop of the NFC for the course if recent history (Squawks) (for now), those are the three NFC team id watch out for.

Should the Lions get in, I dont really think Staff could get them past the divisional round.

[Mothman]

That first part is wrong, but ill save you all the aggravation.

Also, I disagree with your idea that the Giants and Squawks are the only teams capable playing championship caliber D. (Not to mention, those very Giajts proved that if you get hot, your D can go from 32nd in the league to the best D in the playoffs, as they did that)

The Giants arent very hot right now and it might cost them if they draw a hot GB team in the wildcard round, I have great respect for the things Eli has done, but I dont think this is another ring for him.

I think the Packers, Boys, and Squawks are still the class of the NFC, Atlanta is a non factor. The Hot team and QB, the most dominant team in the league, and the established cream of the crop of the NFC for the course if recent history (for now), thise are the three NFC team id watch out for.

You need to learn when to quit and if it's not clear, this would be a good time to quit.

[Jordysghost]

You need to learn when to quit and if it's not clear, now is the time to quit.

I did. Didnt I?

Jee here I was thinking i did good there. He brought up the NFC playoff picture so, you know.

[Jordysghost]

I think you may have misunderstood my post Mothman.

[Husker Vike]

Green Bay lost LB's Martinez for3 games and Matthews for 4, they have also had other single game injuries on D. But on offense they have lost Lacy and that is about it other than a few single game absences, How would have they fared if they lost both left tackle Bakhtiari and right tackle Bulaga who are both very good. No comparison of amount of injuries that the Vikings have endured.

[Jordysghost]

Green Bay lost LB's Martinez for3 games and Matthews for 4, they have also had other single game injuries on D. But on offense they have lost Lacy and that is about it other than a few single game absences, How would have they fared if they lost both left tackle Bakhtiari and right tackle Bulaga who are both very good. No comparison of amount of injuries that the Vikings have endured.

Much of that is incorrect, much of it is your perception on things and one i would dispute, but im done with this topic now, so agree to disagree.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I guess I don't see Jordy as being the problem so much as the people who are willing to engage in debates with him that are mostly just differing opinions that can't be proven one way or the other and not willing to just let it go.

Not sure if that post is towards me or not but that's exactly what I did above was "let it go".

[Pondering Her Percy]

The Packers never lost their best player. The Viking did in week 2. The Bears have been putrid this year, so they show that Injuries are an excuse for a putrid season. Do you think the Packers would be looking at the Division crown right now if Rogers had been hurt in week 2? Or is that not an excuse? Every roster is different and every roster is weak in different areas. By week 5 the Vikings Roster had over half of it's offense manned by backups. That is not normal.

I've been stressing this a lot: It is very difficult to gauge future performance based on this season. 50% of the offense was played most of the season by backups AND they switched systems in their 7th game. In light of these factors it is very hard to see the prior two years plus this year add up to any kind of trend. Some things are the same, others are not. You have to acknowledge the differences vs. just saying "It was the Vikings." Well actually I guess you don't, just do not expect me to find many places to agree with you.

On the Defense what changed? Did the physical talent suddenly fall out of bed? Or is it purely mental? If it is mental then there is reason for optimism. ST seems to be on a pretty good track as well. Can the offense be better just by being healthy? Maybe. If you say no, then based on what? 1/2 the players playing right now are backups. If you say yes, then based on what? Again, half the players playing are backups. I think they will be better simply because half the guys playing are backups. The question is how much better? I don't think they are going to score 30 points a game, but can they get to 25? I don't know.

I've gone down this road many of times mansquatch. So much that my fingers are starting to hurt. I agree with your post 100% but to get guys that disagree with this to somehow turn around and agree is about as likely as me hitting the lottery. Just giving you a heads up man

[Mothman]

http://min.247sports.com/Bolt/Zimmer-I- ... --50071887

Speaking at his press conference today, Zimmer was questioned about his plans for the offseason, including the future of interim offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur. While Zimmer still plans to work in the immediate aftermath of the season, the Vikings' head man insists he won't be rushed in to making any decisions regarding Shurmur - or indeed anyone.

“What I’m going to do is sit down, take a few days,” Zimmer said. “I’m going to work, but I’m going to sit down, take a few days and kind of refresh everything in my mind. Then I’ll make all kinds of decisions and evaluate a lot of different things.

“I don’t want to make any rash decisions on anything,” he added. “I don’t want to linger from whatever happens Sunday or the past Sunday or the season. I want to take a fresh, new look at everything.