Inside the dysfunction of the Zimmer era

[J. Kapp 11]

I think Mark Wilf was only Zimmer's "boss" in the sense that he was the person who could fire him.

That's an important power though. If Spielman is his "boss" in every other capability than that one, then even if Spielman wanted to move on from Zimmer and would otherwise have fired him, the fact that he couldn't would have forced him to play politics rather than make hard decisions. It also allows everyone to pass the responsibility buck.

In short, it enables dysfunction and allows it to fester and even grow, which is exactly what the cited story suggests happened to this team over the last several years.

I think Zimmer behaved the way he did because that's who he is. I doubt any change in structure other than giving him control over the draft and roster would have yielded another outcome and even then, he might have still behaved the same way.

Zimmer behaved the way he did because nobody held him accountable for his behavior.

It's possible Spielman would have allowed the same thing to happen had he had direct control over Zimmer's position I suppose.

The personality traits that became so problematic are the same personality traits that led other teams to pass on him after multiple interviews for head coaching positions.

I always viewed Zimmer as another Brad Childress. Same kind of general approach. Interesting that the Vikings hired Childress, fired Leslie Frazer who by all accounts does not have that personality type, and then went with another "my-way-or-the-highway" head coach.

Will be interesting to see who is hired this time. Hopefully the next HC is not a know-it-all authoritarian.

I hope so too but Mark Wilf was pretty specific the other day when he said "The GM is going to be our first selection, and then the GM will have input in the head coach".

I share Kapp's concern with that language "have input in the head coach".

He/She needs to be the final say on the HC. Hopefully she/he insists on that say before accepting the job.

I’m not necessarily concerned. As I’ve pointed out, other coaches have, in essence, hired their own GM. Sean McDermott of the Bills was hired first, recommended Brandon Beane as GM to ownership, who then hired Beane. It’s unusual, but in some ways it makes sense. If the coach is confident the GM is going to acquire the players he wants, that maximizes the team’s chances of success.

Also, never forget … it’s not the GM’s money being paid to the coach. The owners sign the paychecks. They can hire who they want.

[Mothman]

That's an important power though. If Spielman is his "boss" in every other capability than that one, then even if Spielman wanted to move on from Zimmer and would otherwise have fired him, the fact that he couldn't would have forced him to play politics rather than make hard decisions. It also allows everyone to pass the responsibility buck.

In short, it enables dysfunction and allows it to fester and even grow, which is exactly what the cited story suggests happened to this team over the last several years.

I think you're making an assumption. I doubt many GMs in the league are able to fire head coaches without consulting team ownership first. The final decision might have remained with Mark Wilf but that doesn't mean Spielman was rendered powerless when it came to the performance of his head coach. For all we know, all it would have taken for Zimmer to be fired is an emphatic recommendation from Spielman.

I always viewed Zimmer as another Brad Childress. Same kind of general approach. Interesting that the Vikings hired Childress, fired Leslie Frazer who by all accounts does not have that personality type, and then went with another "my-way-or-the-highway" head coach.

Will be interesting to see who is hired this time. Hopefully the next HC is not a know-it-all authoritarian.

I suspect they'll move in a very different direction.

I share Kapp's concern with that language "have input in the head coach".

I'm not worried about it because ultimately, regardless of who chooses the HC, ownership has to be comfortable with the choice or it will never work out.

[Mothman]

But I don't think it's all that unusual. I look to San Francisco and their hiring of John Lynch and Kyle Shanahan. Lynch was hired one week before Shanahan, but I'm not convinced he had much to do with Shanahan's hiring. On the contrary, Adam Schefter reported at the time that Lynch actually called Shanahan to volunteer himself for the GM job. That means Lynch must have known the 49ers were going to hire Shanahan, even before Lynch himself was hired. Bottom line: Find the right pair, and it can work. Those two have a great working relationship.

I think that bottom line sums it up perfectly. How that pair are hired is less important than finding a GM/coach combo that's truly effective.

The next week or two are going to be some of the most interesting in the history of the franchise. I can't remember another time when both positions were open.

I can't either, although that's partly because for a long time the Vikes didn't have a GM.

[40for60]

I think that bottom line sums it up perfectly. How that pair are hired is less important than finding a GM/coach combo that's truly effective.

Agreed. The Wilfs need to get out the coach interviews to let them know they are potentially interested so they don’t agree to an offer from another team if they are interested in the Vikings job. I also think they ask the GM candidates which coaches they like. I don’t think the GM will “pick” the coach on his/her own. Unless a coach blows the Wilfs and search team out of the water such that they are too worried another team will snipe them, I think the GM will be hired first, and the coach shortly afterwards.

[Texas Vike]

I'm busy with work currently, but read this thread during lunch and just have to say it's a joy to read such intelligent discussion about the Vikings. Mark and Ziggy would do well to recruit a few of you as consultants, honestly.

I've not been able to read the tea leaves and over interpret every bit of news coming out about whom the Vikings are interviewing, but I did like what Kapp had to say about the guy from GB. Spytek seems a solid option for GM, but I have a very limited understanding of the candidates' histories, achievements, tendencies, etc. I really hope that if Mark Wilf is fully gripping the reins, with only "input' from his GM on the HC hire, that he learn from the Zimmer-Spielman troubles. We've discussed (vis-a-vis Doug Pederson) the essential relationship of HC and QB, but the relationship between GM and HC is at least AS important, IMO. There has to be a unity of vision, mutual respect, earnest listening, etc. It's a marriage, ultimately, and they must communicate well. Zimmer is about the worst communicator I can imagine in a HC role. Can't wait to see what we do next!

[VikingLord]

I’m not necessarily concerned. As I’ve pointed out, other coaches have, in essence, hired their own GM. Sean McDermott of the Bills was hired first, recommended Brandon Beane as GM to ownership, who then hired Beane. It’s unusual, but in some ways it makes sense. If the coach is confident the GM is going to acquire the players he wants, that maximizes the team’s chances of success.

If it works I'm fine with it, but I see the GM as the more strategic, "long-term vision" role and the head coach as the more immediate, "how do I take the pieces I have and maximize their potential this season" role.

It's an important distinction and I've watched primarily dysfunctional teams where the roles get mixed up. This can happen too when the head coach inserts himself into the roles played by the OC or DC. There is conflict and controversy and it can become public and quite disruptive. On effective teams, be they football teams or corporate teams or family teams, people know their roles and responsibilities, trust their teammates, and divide and conquer challenges accordingly.

If a head coach is hired before the GM, that is almost an implicit blurring of the long-term and immediate performance roles. Maybe it can work, and there certainly seem to be examples of it working, but I suspect that starting off like that will ultimately result in dysfunction unless either the GM or head coach is allowed to remain the clear, undisputed leader. And in that case, if that personality is authoritarian, it's likely to implode with a bang at some point rather than a whimper.

Also, never forget … it’s not the GM’s money being paid to the coach. The owners sign the paychecks. They can hire who they want.

Sure, the owner's pay the bills. Smart owners will delegate responsibilities though, and grant the GM the power to hire and fire, draft, make moves in FA, etc, without undue interference. Input should be allowed and encouraged, but not outright interference.

The GM remains accountable to the owners and if he/she makes a move they don't agree with, they can fire that person.

[VikingLord]

I think you're making an assumption. I doubt many GMs in the league are able to fire head coaches without consulting team ownership first. The final decision might have remained with Mark Wilf but that doesn't mean Spielman was rendered powerless when it came to the performance of his head coach. For all we know, all it would have taken for Zimmer to be fired is an emphatic recommendation from Spielman.

That is an interesting question.

According to the reporting that Kapp shared with us, Zimmer went on record after the 2017 season ended saying that if the Vikings went out and spent a lot of money on a FA QB, that would be his doom. Then Spielman went out and did exactly that.

I'm not sure what that says about the working relationship between the two of them. Spielman hired Zimmer originally knowing he was a defensive-minded head coach. The team literally had just finished a season with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL and finished within a game of the Superbowl with backup journeyman at QB, and that head coach is on record saying he didn't want to do what the GM ended up doing.

What should a competent GM have done in that situation? It's a curious question because it speaks directly to the relationship not just between Spielman and Zimmer, but between a GM and the head coach generally.

It sounds like the head coach didn't like Keenum and didn't want to keep him at QB the following year, but he also didn't want Cousins, at least not at the resultant price tag. Zimmer's team was good. His defense was really good, and offensively he had pieces as well. I can't imagine his advice to Spielman would have been beyond Denny Green's mid-90's playbook at QB: go out and find a competent vet at QB at a reasonable price and let me win with the players I have. For the positions that need to be improved or extended, we'll have plenty of money in FA to make sure those are maintained or even improved.

Spielman went in a completely, 180-degree direction from that when he signed Cousins to a huge, guaranteed deal that offseason.

And not surprisingly, the dysfunction and under-achievement began in earnest just the following season with the Vikings missing the playoffs. There were pundits predicting a Vikings dynasty after the 2017 season given the age of many of their star players. They went from that to middling and out of the playoffs.

Was it Spielman's fault, or Zimmer's fault? What enabled the divergence between the views of the head coach and the GM that offseason? Was it Mark Wilf over-ruling Zimmer in favor of Spielman's idea? Or did Spielman really enjoy so much autonomy and control that he simply shook his head politely after hearing what Zimmer had to say and went out and did what he wanted anyway, despite knowing his head coach wouldn't know how to use that shiny expensive new piece he'd acquired?

Most important question - how do the Vikings avoid a repeat of this type of situation going forward with their GM and head coach?

[psjordan]

I don't think much hand-wringing is warranted regarding the interview/selection sequence here. Candidates for our positions are clearly also candidates for other positions, and timing can be crucial. So the team is interviewing who they can when they can.

If they love a HC candidate and he says "you have two days to commit to me", well, maybe that's not the right guy. Maybe he is - in which case you contact your top 5 GM candidates and say "we need to hire X right away, do you have issues with that?".

Really, at the end of the day my guess is that they'll get one of their top two candidates at each slot, and those folks will profess zero qualms about working with each other.

I almost feel like the GM/HC part of the league is in the beginnings of "age and demographic" turnover, similar to suburban neighborhoods when the empty nesters move out and the new families with kids move in. In that regard, IMO there are a LOT of great, young candidates for both our slots and we are lucky to be shopping right now.

So big scheme, unless this thing really slides sideways, I see us with far more chance to get it right than to get it wrong. No matter the sequence of the hiring.

Therefore I'll only be concerned if we go re-tread. Doug Peterson may be a fine coach still, but he's not even close to what I'd like to see. I want to see the young family with kids come in and put swingsets where there were none, a fence for the dog, plastic kids furniture in the front yard and decorate the snot out of the place for Halloween. If you get the analogy.

This org needs a complete and total refresh, and I hope the Wilfs see that.

[StanM]

I think the most important answer in the Vikings interview process is “how do you and your family feel about spending winters in Minnesota?”

[J. Kapp 11]

One thing to remember about any HC interviews this week.

They're all being done by Zoom. There's no way you can get a full picture of a candidate that way. They're preliminary. In essence, these are screening interviews. You can't wait until you have a GM to START having conversations with HC candidates, or you risk losing your chance at somebody you really want. If HC candidates are deemed to be worthy of a second interview, those will certainly be done in person. And it's very unlikely any decisions on a HC are going to be made until a GM is on board.

[Mothman]

That is an interesting question.

According to the reporting that Kapp shared with us, Zimmer went on record after the 2017 season ended saying that if the Vikings went out and spent a lot of money on a FA QB, that would be his doom. Then Spielman went out and did exactly that.

I'm not sure what that says about the working relationship between the two of them. Spielman hired Zimmer originally knowing he was a defensive-minded head coach. The team literally had just finished a season with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL and finished within a game of the Superbowl with backup journeyman at QB, and that head coach is on record saying he didn't want to do what the GM ended up doing.

What should a competent GM have done in that situation? It's a curious question because it speaks directly to the relationship not just between Spielman and Zimmer, but between a GM and the head coach generally.

It sounds like the head coach didn't like Keenum and didn't want to keep him at QB the following year, but he also didn't want Cousins, at least not at the resultant price tag. Zimmer's team was good. His defense was really good, and offensively he had pieces as well. I can't imagine his advice to Spielman would have been beyond Denny Green's mid-90's playbook at QB: go out and find a competent vet at QB at a reasonable price and let me win with the players I have. For the positions that need to be improved or extended, we'll have plenty of money in FA to make sure those are maintained or even improved.

Spielman went in a completely, 180-degree direction from that when he signed Cousins to a huge, guaranteed deal that offseason.

And not surprisingly, the dysfunction and under-achievement began in earnest just the following season with the Vikings missing the playoffs. There were pundits predicting a Vikings dynasty after the 2017 season given the age of many of their star players. They went from that to middling and out of the playoffs.

Was it Spielman's fault, or Zimmer's fault? What enabled the divergence between the views of the head coach and the GM that offseason? Was it Mark Wilf over-ruling Zimmer in favor of Spielman's idea? Or did Spielman really enjoy so much autonomy and control that he simply shook his head politely after hearing what Zimmer had to say and went out and did what he wanted anyway, despite knowing his head coach wouldn't know how to use that shiny expensive new piece he'd acquired?

Most important question - how do the Vikings avoid a repeat of this type of situation going forward with their GM and head coach?

One way to do it would be to hire a head coach who isn't so stubborn, strong-headed and overly dedicated to defense. I think the dysfunction was clearly present before 2017. As I've said, Zimmer's shortcomings were apparent within two years. His rejection of the idea of signing Cousins was likely born out of his passion for defense and his apparent belief that they could win by devoting resources heavily to that unit, running the ball effectively on offense, having a caretaker QB, building small leads and then sitting on them. That approach had obvious limitations and Zimmer never seemed to truly grasp that.

I think Spielman's decision to sign Cousins shows both a strength and potential weakness of having the kind of strict hierarchy of authority and responsibility we've been discussing in this thread. He was in charge of the roster and as GM, his vision for the team mattered most because he had to build the roster and choose the right coach to manage it. I think he fell short in both areas but that delineation of responsibility was always clear and Zimmer knew it so whether he wanted Cousins or not, I think it was his responsibility to do make the most of the roster he had.

Anyway, the best way to avoid that type of situation in the future is to find a coach/GM combo with a collaborative attitude, a shared vision and a willingness to communicate with each other. They both need to understand their roles and play "complementary football" just like an effective offense and defense.

It's obviously easier said than done but I think a strong, shared vision for the team is critical.

[StumpHunter]

One way to do it would be to hire a head coach who isn't so stubborn, strong-headed and overly dedicated to defense. I think the dysfunction was clearly present before 2017. As I've said, Zimmer's shortcomings were apparent within two years. His rejection of the idea of signing Cousins was likely born out of his passion for defense and his apparent belief that they could win by devoting resources heavily to that unit, running the ball effectively on offense, having a caretaker QB, building small leads and then sitting on them. That approach had obvious limitations and Zimmer never seemed to truly grasp that.

I will take the dysfunction leading up to the 2017 every day. When you win more games than all but 3 teams in the entire NFL over a 3 year period, that is some good dysfunction.

2018 things went south and it wasn't just the signing of Cousins that caused it. You also had a GM force an OC on his HC, and a bad OC at that. That move on top of the signing of a QB the HC didn't was the beginning of the end, imo. Not some perceived issues that lead to 2nd most wins in the history of the franchise.

[Mothman]

I will take the dysfunction leading up to the 2017 every day. When you win more games than all but 3 teams in the entire NFL over a 3 year period, that is some good dysfunction.

I understand what you’re saying. The 2017 season was obviously fun but for me, the trade off isn’t worth it because despite the wins, the shortcomings were real and they weren’t going to go away. The 13 win season and miraculous last-second play to win against NO were great but they weren’t worth the additional 4 seasons of futility they bought.

I’m not going to debate when the “beginning of the end” started because I don’t think it’s relevant. Personally, that moment for me was when I realized Zimmer and Spielman didn’t have the right stuff. Everything after that was just a ride to the inevitable end. Some of it was fun but I’ve been on that same ride too many times with the Vikes. I didn’t need a new 8 year version of it.

I’m thrilled the Zimmer/Spielman era is finally over. It gives me cause to hope the team might actually get back to the Super Bowl again.

[StumpHunter]

I will take the dysfunction leading up to the 2017 every day. When you win more games than all but 3 teams in the entire NFL over a 3 year period, that is some good dysfunction.

I’m not going to debate when the “beginning of the end” started because I don’t think it’s relevant.

I think it is relevant because one time period is what ownership should be aiming for with their new hires while the other is what they should be desperately trying to avoid.

The seasons leading up to 2017 showed what could happen when a HC and GM were on the same page, while 2018 on was what it looks like when a GM and HC get too full of themselves and stubbornly think they know best and stop doing what lead to their previous success.

[Mothman]

I’m not going to debate when the “beginning of the end” started because I don’t think it’s relevant.

I think it is relevant because one time period is what ownership should be aiming for with their new hires while the other is what they should be desperately trying to avoid.

The seasons leading up to 2017 showed what could happen when a HC and GM were on the same page, while 2018 on was what it looks like when a GM and HC get too full of themselves and stubbornly think they know best and stop doing what lead to their previous success.

That’s one way to look at it. I think the seasons leading up to 2017 showed the limitations of that coach/GM combo and both 2017 and what came after showed the peak of what they could achieve and the inevitable consequences of ignoring their limitations and keeping them around.

Zimmer always seemed full of himself. I think it’s one of the reasons he kept getting passed over for head coaching positions.