Donatel needs the axe

[Foreman44]

Read coach Donatel is still our D,C,

[Texas Vike]

Donatell is doing exactly what Zimmer was doing, when people wanted him gone. Not making adjustments, mainly because is too stubborn. If we want to win another game, he had better learn, and KOC better be talking to him about it. We got exposed Sunday teams will see weaknesses. If Donatell cant adjust during halftime from now on, we may not even be in the playoffs, let alone NFCN winners.

There are definitely similarities. Also, similar to Zimmer at the end... things might HAVE to get really bad in order for the Vikings to move on. Firing him midseason (at 10-3, no less) would be surprising, but KAM and KOC had better make a move for next season.

[IIsweet]

Honestly, I do not see any firing happening.
KAM and KOC inherited an aging and slow team. They brought in Donatell to run the D and he wanted to run a 3-4 / 4-2.
KAM then got the NT in Phillips to do exactly what he is doing, eat up blockers. They brought in Hicks to pair with EK to make the transition smoother with an experienced LB. They got Z to rush the passer hoping that Hunter would be able to wreak havoc when both on the field, and hoping Hunter could stand up and play also. It is the competitive rebuild.
They drafted 3 guys for the secondary with length and speed to make the field appear smaller, and a LB that can run as well.
It is going to take time. I expect some more draft picks with length and speed as KAM looks to add athletes all over the place.
There may be a lot of turnover this year in the offseason with aging veterans !!! Be prepared to lose our favorite players, but it is time!

[Just Me]

Except that you're ignoring the fact that the Vikings have to attempt a two point conversion at some point regardless of when you do it (in order to force the win). If you do it when KOC did, then you still have the opportunity to try it again if it fails (assuming the aforementioned stop and second touchdown occurs) to at least send the game to OT. If you try it when KOC did you have a chance to put yourself in the driver's seat for the outright win with the safety net of still having an option for forcing OT if it fails. If you wait until the last touchdown and fail, you just lose outright. See? It's a matter of opinion...

I'm not ignoring anything. If they kick the extra point, they are down by 7. Why do you think they have to go for two at ANY point? If they stop the Lions on the next drive, they only need a TD and XP to tie. I'm really not following the logic of going for two at all.

(Emphasis in my original post was added for this reply). The issue was whether or not it was a "bad decision." (For the record, I didn't like it and still don't), but it still is a matter of opinion. I don't think they do have to go for 2 but there is a school of thought that if you're on the road in a tough game, going for the win in regulation is preferable to forcing overtime. That is an opinion that several coaches share, and doesn't make KOC's choice 'wrong' per se.

If you elect to "go for the win" at some point, it makes more sense to try it at that point because if you fail, you still have a chance to "recover" from the failure (assuming you score the other TD) and at least go to overtime. If you "go for the win" on the final touchdown and fail, you just lose. Also, our kicker is not "Mr. reliable" for extra points.

Still don't agree with the decision, but it's not "wrong," it's just a difference of opinion (which was my whole point - not that it was a strategy that I agree with).

[Just Me]

So strictly-speaking, there was no need to win the game outright - the Vikings just needed to not lose it. A tie would have been enough.

For winning the Division that is true, for playoff seeding however, it might prove detrimental depending on how things play out. Obviously a tie is better than a loss, but if we could know ahead of time that the 2 point would fail (heck the XP might have been missed for that matter) then take the (semi)sure extra point.

[VikingLord]

So strictly-speaking, there was no need to win the game outright - the Vikings just needed to not lose it. A tie would have been enough.

For winning the Division that is true, for playoff seeding however, it might prove detrimental depending on how things play out. Obviously a tie is better than a loss, but if we could know ahead of time that the 2 point would fail (heck the XP might have been missed for that matter) then take the (semi)sure extra point.

I've been amazed at how people are trying to justify what in reality was an overly aggressive move by KOC in that last game. He seemed intent on being overly aggressive right from the get-go with that decision to go for it on 4th down on his side of the 50, which was another decision that had a terrible risk-reward.

I get it that he wanted to win outright and set a tone in both decisions, but neither was needed to achieve what the team needed. Punting on that 4th down wasn't glamorous, but you play for field position and make it harder for the Lions to put points on the board. Kicking the PAT instead of going for 2 is playing to even up the score, but even with Greg Joseph kicking the ball that is far more likely to result in points than the 2 point conversion attempt. And that handoff to Cook on 1st-and-3 near the end of the first half was a far more complicated way to hit the TE in the endzone than a simple play action would have been.

I know a lot of people like KOC here, and he's done a great job to this point for the most part. Heck, I like KOC and want him to succeed as much as anyone. But I have to call a spade a spade. KOC blew it in this last game against the Lions. He wanted to make a statement and get his statement win and it just wasn't necessary. Maybe if the dice fell differently it would have worked out. The calls were aggressive, and had they worked he likely would have had a chance to win. And on the other side, Campbell was aggressive too and had his calls not worked, the Lions likely would have lost. So there is an element of fortune involved, and KOC came out on the wrong side of too many of his calls while Campbell managed to come out on the right side. But it wasn't just a game of luck, and I think had KOC just called it straight and conservatively, that would have given his team the best overall chance to win. As Kapp noted, you go for 2 late in the game when you need that extra point over what you'd get going for 1. You go for it on 4th down on your side of the 50 when you need to keep your game winning or game tying last 4th quarter drive alive. If the game is otherwise in hand, there is no need to reach.

I hope KOC does better going forward, and likewise doesn't swing too far towards the conservative side of things, because that can cost the team as well if he lacks aggression when the situation calls for it.

[Foreman44]

Read coach Donatel is still our D,C,

I looked at latest posts. Looked like people were s5ill talking to have him go. Like it wasn’t posted that coach. KOC didn’t say that Donnatelli s still calling plays.

[chicagopurple]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing this week...flalsh backs of stubborn old Zim refusing to adapt his schemes in-game or week to week. This year, we are doing so well, we arent going to get any high draft picks.....double edged sword when you perform above your expectations.

[Just Me]

I've been amazed at how people are trying to justify what in reality was an overly aggressive move by KOC in that last game. He seemed intent on being overly aggressive right from the get-go with that decision to go for it on 4th down on his side of the 50, which was another decision that had a terrible risk-reward.

I agree with your take on him being too aggressive, especially with the situation you mentioned above. And for the third time, I did not agree with the decision to go for 2 points after the TD, but I think it was/is a judgement call. I thought Kapp had the best reasoning to go against it (It destroys the momentum that you just achieved, and you don't have to make that decision in the 3rd quarter - There is still a lot of game left when making that call)

I get it that he wanted to win outright and set a tone in both decisions, but neither was needed to achieve what the team needed. Punting on that 4th down wasn't glamorous, but you play for field position and make it harder for the Lions to put points on the board. Kicking the PAT instead of going for 2 is playing to even up the score, but even with Greg Joseph kicking the ball that is far more likely to result in points than the 2 point conversion attempt. And that handoff to Cook on 1st-and-3 near the end of the first half was a far more complicated way to hit the TE in the endzone than a simple play action would have been.

Yes - I'm not disagreeing. I was only responding to the part of your post which suggested that a tie was, in essence, as good as a win for purposes of clinching the Division. That was also true, but I was pointing out that a tie might have other ramifications that affect playoff seeding outside of just winning the division. For the record, I was also only referring to the decision to go for two as a judgement call and not necessarily the "wrong call" there. I was never defending the other aggressive calls that KOC made.

[makila]

For winning the Division that is true, for playoff seeding however, it might prove detrimental depending on how things play out. Obviously a tie is better than a loss, but if we could know ahead of time that the 2 point would fail (heck the XP might have been missed for that matter) then take the (semi)sure extra point.

I've been amazed at how people are trying to justify what in reality was an overly aggressive move by KOC in that last game. He seemed intent on being overly aggressive right from the get-go with that decision to go for it on 4th down on his side of the 50, which was another decision that had a terrible risk-reward.

I get it that he wanted to win outright and set a tone in both decisions, but neither was needed to achieve what the team needed. Punting on that 4th down wasn't glamorous, but you play for field position and make it harder for the Lions to put points on the board. Kicking the PAT instead of going for 2 is playing to even up the score, but even with Greg Joseph kicking the ball that is far more likely to result in points than the 2 point conversion attempt. And that handoff to Cook on 1st-and-3 near the end of the first half was a far more complicated way to hit the TE in the endzone than a simple play action would have been.

I know a lot of people like KOC here, and he's done a great job to this point for the most part. Heck, I like KOC and want him to succeed as much as anyone. But I have to call a spade a spade. KOC blew it in this last game against the Lions. He wanted to make a statement and get his statement win and it just wasn't necessary. Maybe if the dice fell differently it would have worked out. The calls were aggressive, and had they worked he likely would have had a chance to win. And on the other side, Campbell was aggressive too and had his calls not worked, the Lions likely would have lost. So there is an element of fortune involved, and KOC came out on the wrong side of too many of his calls while Campbell managed to come out on the right side. But it wasn't just a game of luck, and I think had KOC just called it straight and conservatively, that would have given his team the best overall chance to win. As Kapp noted, you go for 2 late in the game when you need that extra point over what you'd get going for 1. You go for it on 4th down on your side of the 50 when you need to keep your game winning or game tying last 4th quarter drive alive. If the game is otherwise in hand, there is no need to reach.

I hope KOC does better going forward, and likewise doesn't swing too far towards the conservative side of things, because that can cost the team as well if he lacks aggression when the situation calls for it.

Agree with pretty much everything here. Wasnt kocs best game. I still disagree with the 2 pt conversion when he did it. There was still over a full quarter of game and multiple possessions to go. As i said earlier in thread
Meh. Absolutely want him to succeed, because it means the Vikings do.

[TheCoolerOne]

Don’t you think we needed to be aggressive? All game? Score as many points as possible?

I find this thread kind of spiraling into some meta-level irony, as it was created and titled as a call to fire the Defensive Coordinator.

Now it’s taken a turn, and all threads do anyway, to malign the over-aggressive nature of O’Connell as an HC and OC.

Every decision O’Connell made, save for the 4th & 1 call early (which I don’t have an issue with, but that’s neither here nor there for now) was a result of his recognition that the defense wasn’t going to stop Detroit.

For the purposes of this conversation, the Vikings surrendered 500 yards. When they scored to pull within 8, two minutes left in the third, doesn’t anybody think it was prudent to try to maximize the points?

This idea that it was too early and there was still a whole quarter to play, I just don’t understand, as it seems like that presumes we could count on our defense to get us the ball back a few more times?

We basically only got possession in Sunday’s game whenever the Lions decided they were done with the ball.

VikingLord, I saw you call for a more conservative game, that O’Connell was chasing a statement win, and I just don’t see it like that at all. He was chasing points because the defensive side of the ball was giving him no chance at a conservative style of play calling.

They (the Vikings) averaged 1.3 yards per carry. You can’t play even remotely conservative when you can’t run the ball, and for some reason (all season) you can’t screen, which is an extension of the run game.

There’s no controlling the clock, there’s no playing keep away, anything like that when you can’t move the ball on the ground.

You abandon the run, which they did, and you start to sling it.

Then the onside kick with 4 and change or whatever left, too early for a team with a defense that can get you the ball back, but not too early for this defense.

The only way we were going to pull that out when we got down 21-7 was to maximize possessions (not possession) and maximize points.

[StanM]

What has Kevin O’Connell done to possibly make you think he’s not accountable?

KOC deserves criticism today. He got out-coached by Dan Campbell. But I guarantee, you can’t name one thing the man has ever done or said that could lead a person of reasonable intelligence to think he doesn’t own his mistakes.

O'Connell did not admit that the 2 point play is a mistake so he did not think he is accountable

The two point conversion attempt was a calculated risk that KOC felt was worth taking in that scenario. When it works he made the right call but this time the gamble didn’t work out. The Vikings didn’t play well but they were never entirely out of this game. JJ stayed in bounds but was called out of bounds or the TD would have bought us another minute on the clock. The two point attempt is just one of many plays that didn’t go our way. As far as KOC not owning his mistakes he is one of the most humble coaches I have seen in press conferences. I watch his post game press conferences on YouTube and never get a bad impression. He’s a smart guy and not oblivious to the performance of the defense and talked about that as well.

If you’re not a KOC fan that is your choice but he has been admitting when he could have made better choices in every press conference all season. I’m not seeing the arrogant person you’re describing in your comment.

[StanM]

I think a lot of people also need to pump the breaks on something. We have a 1st year HC and a new DC.
This is still their 1st year with these players.
I get it, they have been coaching for years and Donatell has been a DC before.
He, Donatell, inherited this aging group of players and the slow secondary. I am not impressed with the lack of improvement on the defensive side of the ball, but that's not entirely on Donatell. The aging players are getting tired and slowing down as the season progresses and the bodies continue to take a beating. This game definitely takes a toll on these guys. I guarantee that they have a lot of nagging injuries and soreness that is not reported that they just play thru. The new kids drafted have had unfortunate seasons. Cine, Booth, and Evans have all been banged up or on IR. This hurts the secondary team speed, and length, but could be more promising for '23 if they can be healthy.
As for KOC, it is his 1st season EVER as a HC and he is calling plays. As with nearly every person on the planet, there is a learning curve, no matter how prepared and dynamic one is. Year 2 will be much better, no doubt and so on. Problem is... we are 10-3 and the expectations have been set so high with all of the wins ! These guys have done an incredible job with the old regimes roster.
It is a competitive Rebuild and they have exceeded expectations. I just hope that we are healthy in the playoffs. Once the division is clinched, I would focus on resting the aging guys and get the young bucks as much game tape and experience as possible

Excellent post. You make some great points. No NFL team has a perfect roster from top to bottom. Rebuilds take time but I like what I see this year. We have had a magical season so far and they managed to rack up ten wins but we have flaws that aren’t going to get fixed in the middle of December. There is no savior free agent working a 9-5 job that is going to come in and save the day. I’m pleasantly surprised that the Vikings have exceeded a lot of expectations. It’s easy to sit back and pick apart the weaknesses and poor performance in some cases but we’re 10-3, should see them in the post season and are being entertained way more than most expected. It’s nice to know that there are some glass half full people among us.

[VikingLord]

VikingLord, I saw you call for a more conservative game, that O’Connell was chasing a statement win, and I just don’t see it like that at all. He was chasing points because the defensive side of the ball was giving him no chance at a conservative style of play calling.

Why couldn't the defensive side adjust?

If you can't play defense with most of your starters healthy (I think only Smith was out), what business does this team have in the playoffs?

They (the Vikings) averaged 1.3 yards per carry. You can’t play even remotely conservative when you can’t run the ball, and for some reason (all season) you can’t screen, which is an extension of the run game.

Even in that I am very critical of KOC. They ran consistently on first downs and consistently attempted runs up the middle out of tight, bunched formations. How many of those attempts were stopped by a DB? It seemed like nearly every one.

And it's not like the Lions have a great run defense. I think they came into the game ranked like 30th against the run on defense. KOC had to literally help them be so effective defending the Vikings run offense by being overly predictable in terms of both the run playcalls and formations. How much would you like to bet the Lions come nowhere near that type of run defense against any of their remaining opponents the rest of this season?

The most frustrating part of this for me is that KOC refused to change his approach the entire game. Obviously the Vikings abandoned the run once they fell sufficiently behind, but prior to that it was the same thing over and over and over. He refused to recognize it wasn't working and refused to adjust. It was like he thought it should work and he was going to keep doing it until it did.

He deserves criticism for that because he didn't put his team in the best position to win. You may disagree, but I think the result of the game settles the question, at least for me.

Then the onside kick with 4 and change or whatever left, too early for a team with a defense that can get you the ball back, but not too early for this defense.

Onside kick wasn't a bad decision, but it was the ultimate result of a lot of bad decisions made before it.

The only way we were going to pull that out when we got down 21-7 was to maximize possessions (not possession) and maximize points.

Bad decisions and sometimes bad luck leads to desperation, unfortunately. This applies to individual games, to entire seasons, off-field moves, drafts, etc. It's always the same story. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. Better calls and adjustments earlier in that game would have made it less likely the Lions ever got up 21-7 in the first place IMHO. KOC has called some solid games to this point, and he deserves credit for that body of work, but against the Lions he seemed hell-bent from the start to knock out all the stops and exert his will.

I will be very interested to see how KOC adapts his approach against the Colts now along with what, if any, changes the Vikings make defensively to get things back on track. The Colts offense is anemic. If the Vikings give up another 400+ against them that will be a terrible sign for the playoffs even if the Vikings ultimately end up winning the game.

[TheCoolerOne]

Why couldn't the defensive side adjust?

If you can't play defense with most of your starters healthy (I think only Smith was out), what business does this team have in the playoffs?

That's kind of the crux of this entire thread, and the larger conversation, no? The defense has not shown any ability to adjust. 4, or 5 weeks of 400+ or whatever?

We've got a gaggle of corners that have no real business being on the field yet (Peterson notwithstanding), we just added another, and that's including the two on IR.

Even in that I am very critical of KOC. They ran consistently on first downs and consistently attempted runs up the middle out of tight, bunched formations. How many of those attempts were stopped by a DB? It seemed like nearly every one.

And it's not like the Lions have a great run defense. I think they came into the game ranked like 30th against the run on defense. KOC had to literally help them be so effective defending the Vikings run offense by being overly predictable in terms of both the run playcalls and formations. How much would you like to bet the Lions come nowhere near that type of run defense against any of their remaining opponents the rest of this season?

The most frustrating part of this for me is that KOC refused to change his approach the entire game. Obviously the Vikings abandoned the run once they fell sufficiently behind, but prior to that it was the same thing over and over and over. He refused to recognize it wasn't working and refused to adjust. It was like he thought it should work and he was going to keep doing it until it did.

He deserves criticism for that because he didn't put his team in the best position to win. You may disagree, but I think the result of the game settles the question, at least for me..

Last five weeks, 34% of the Vikings runs have gone for zero, or negative yards. In that same window, they're 31st in the league at yards before contact, and that clocks in at 1/2 a yard.

That's Bills, Cowboys, Patriots, Jets, Lions.

That looks eerily coincidental to losing Darrisaw, and it surely it has a lot to do with it, but even in the Bills game, you take away that 81-yard scamper and Cook's tasty box score disappears.

The Lions might be 30th in run defense, but the Vikings cannot run the ball, if the last five weeks are any indication. Sunday's game in particular, they're playing a guy in Schlottmann who has like four games of experience, and Brandel to boot.

You can only scheme around bad personnel so much, and that seems to be what O'Connell is dealing with. In the Vikings most impressive offensive performance in these last 5 weeks--and I guess I should add the asterisk that it's my personal view--against the Patriots, the Vikings ran for 57 yards.

The way I see it, leaning into what is working considering what you've got, is the right call.