Do you want Johnny Manziel at #8?

[Purple bruise]

Aikman didn't start off well either. It's not uncommon at all. I think it's easy to evaluate whether a QB is talented enough to have a chance to become great but I don't think anyone can tell in 10 games, or even one season, if a QB is going to be great.

I still say circumstances play a huge role in how QBs perform and are perceived. For example, John wrote that if "you look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson". Is wilson really one of the best QBs in the NFL? Would he be perceived that way if he'd landed in Oakland and started as a rookie instead of landing in Seattle and starting as a rookie? I seriously doubt it and I mean no disrespect to his obvious talent when I say that. I'm simply saying the main reason his name even comes up in a discussion about the best QBs in the league is because he's on such a good team. Drop him onto a bad team and he might still work his way into that "best QB" conversation but it's unlikely he'd be in it yet.

Hey great!! We can now all agree this is Ponder's year

[S197]

Aikman didn't start off well either. It's not uncommon at all. I think it's easy to evaluate whether a QB is talented enough to have a chance to become great but I don't think anyone can tell in 10 games, or even one season, if a QB is going to be great.

I still say circumstances play a huge role in how QBs perform and are perceived. For example, John wrote that if "you look at some of the evidence, and it seems that the best QB's can be evaluated pretty quickly once they get to the NFL. It took Pete Carroll parts of four pre-season games to go with Wilson". Is wilson really one of the best QBs in the NFL? Would he be perceived that way if he'd landed in Oakland and started as a rookie instead of landing in Seattle and starting as a rookie? I seriously doubt it and I mean no disrespect to his obvious talent when I say that. I'm simply saying the main reason his name even comes up in a discussion about the best QBs in the league is because he's on such a good team. Drop him onto a bad team and he might still work his way into that "best QB" conversation but it's unlikely he'd be in it yet.

I don't think Wilson is one of the best QBs in the NFL, he's a very good game manager, but I also think Carroll made a gutsy call that deserves a lot of credit. They had just signed Flynn to a big deal but pulled the plug in preseason for a 3rd rounder. That's a rather significant decision, one that I don't think a team like the Raiders (or Vikings) would have had the guts or competency to make. Carroll has an incredible eye for talent and starting Wilson is just one of the many times he's showcased this ability in his short NFL career.

Circumstances certainly play a role but I'm a bigger believer in playing the hand you're dealt. The best poker players aren't the ones who luck out and get dealt the most pocket aces, they're the ones that can play any hand better than their opponent. This is why I think coaching is such a critical component and why the Vikings primary problem in the last few years was the coaching staff. I think the key here is not what category you place Wilson, he's a good QB at least by almost all accounts, the key is the speed at which his talent was identified. That is what was impressive.

[Mothman]

don't think Wilson is one of the best QBs in the NFL, he's a very good game manager, but I also think Carroll made a gutsy call that deserves a lot of credit. They had just signed Flynn to a big deal but pulled the plug in preseason for a 3rd rounder. That's a rather significant decision, one that I don't think a team like the Raiders (or Vikings) would have had the guts or competency to make. Carroll has an incredible eye for talent and starting Wilson is just one of the many times he's showcased this ability in his short NFL career.

Carroll definitely has an eye for talent but if his eye was that sharp, you could argue that they wouldn't have signed Flynn to such a big deal in the first place.

Seriously, it took the courage of Carroll's convictions to play Wilson over the much more expensive Flynn but I see no reason why the Vikings couldn't or wouldn't make the same move under the same circumstances. It's not as if Wilson wasn't a terrific college player and he was clearly impressing his coaches every step of the way. As Mike Sando wrote in this article at the time, "Coach Pete Carroll made the only choice he could realistically make after watching Russell Wilson dominate the Seattle Seahawks' quarterback competition".

Circumstances certainly play a role but I'm a bigger believer in playing the hand you're dealt. The best poker players aren't the ones who luck out and get dealt the most pocket aces, they're the ones that can play any hand better than their opponent. This is why I think coaching is such a critical component and why the Vikings primary problem in the last few years was the coaching staff.

I see your point but football isn't poker and even in poker if the other guy has better cards and won't buy the bluff, he's wins the hand. There's no bluffing in football. The hand you're dealt has to be good enough to win.

People can and will continue to make the Vikings coaching staff into scapegoats for what happened last season but you can't tell me that if the Vikings had swapped Christian Ponder (and/or Cassel) for Peyton Manning last year that the Vikings wouldn't have been better and the Broncos wouldn't have finished with fewer than 13 wins. If the Vikings had Seattle's defensive personnel instead of their own, I have absolutely no doubt they would have been better and if Seattle had the Vikings defensive personnel, I don't think Carroll and company would have a Super Bowl ring right now. As I've said before, there's a reason teams are obsessed with maximizing the talent they can get out of the draft at this time of year. There's a reason talented players command big money right out of the gate in free agency and teams cling to star QBs in their prime like they're gold wrapped in platinum dipped in diamonds. Coaching matters but the NFL is a talent-driven league. Strategy plays a role in success but games aren't won on a chess board or at a poker table, they're won on the field, by the players. Ask any coach what he wants most and he'll start talking about talent, probably at QB. Heck, I just heard Jon Gruden making essentially the same point this morning.

I think the key here is not what category you place Wilson, he's a good QB at least by almost all accounts, the key is the speed at which his talent was identified. That is what was impressive.

I think he made it easy. As I said, he was clearly a gifted player in college but by the time he had proven himself in camp and was doing things like leading the offense to six scores on its first six possessions against Kansas City in the preseason, I really don't think identifying his talent was that tough anymore.

[S197]

Carroll definitely has an eye for talent but if his eye was that sharp, you could argue that they wouldn't have signed Flynn to such a big deal in the first place.

Well no one is perfect and sometimes it takes a bigger man to admit a mistake than going forward with said mistake. No matter the argument, the bottom line is Carroll put the right man behind center and he did it from day 1 of the season.

Seriously, it took the courage of Carroll's convictions to play Wilson over the much more expensive Flynn but I see no reason why the Vikings couldn't or wouldn't make the same move under the same circumstances.

I see nothing to indicate the Vikings would have made a similar move. The revolving carousel of Ponder/Cassel/Freeman is a pretty strong argument against it. Even many of the players expressed their "QB fatigue" saying eventually to just, "start someone and keep with it" (paraphrasing).

Patterson would be another prime example of a player who should have saw the field earlier but did not. Robinson as an example of a player who should have saw less or a different role. If you go further back, there's the indecision between Schwartz/Fusco, which eventually led to the Vikings losing out on a good guard. If you go further back, there is the Raymond/Sanford situation. One in which I don't think was resolved until somewhere near mid-season.

I see your point but football isn't poker and even in poker if the other guy has better cards and won't buy the bluff, he's wins the hand. There's no bluffing in football. The hand you're dealt has to be good enough to win.

As it was mentioned in another thread, Spielman has drafted more pro bowlers than Thompson, I think the hand Frazier was dealt was more than adequate. At some point you need to produce with what you have and that simply wasn't the case.

People can and will continue to make the Vikings coaching staff into scapegoats for what happened last season but you can't tell me that if the Vikings had swapped Christian Ponder (and/or Cassel) for Peyton Manning last year that the Vikings wouldn't have been better and the Broncos wouldn't have finished with fewer than 13 wins.

And I'm sure if you swapped Adrian Peterson for X team, they would be better off too. You're going to have shortcomings somewhere, a good coach needs to be able to maximize what he is given (hence the play the hand you're dealt analogy). I also find it interesting you feel the Vikings coaching staff were scapegoats. Even if you feel talent was the primary problem, that's letting them off awfully easy.

If the Vikings had Seattle's defensive personnel instead of their own, I have absolutely no doubt they would have been better and if Seattle had the Vikings defensive personnel, I don't think Carroll and company would have a Super Bowl ring right now.

And to be fair, you didn't think much of Seattle at the beginning of the season either. You found them to be rather overrated or over-hyped if I recall correctly. So I think you should admit that when it comes to Seattle you're carrying forward some of your bias.

Coaching matters but the NFL is a talent-driven league. Strategy plays a role in success but games aren't won on a chess board or at a poker table, they're won on the field, by the players. Ask any coach what he wants most and he'll start talking about talent, probably at QB.

We'll probably never see eye to eye on this point, at least not for the foreseeable future but there are a number of situations where a coaching change has shown a vast improvement in a relatively short period of time. Zimmer, luckily for us, is a good example. The Arizona Cardinals is another. For the record, I'm not saying talent isn't a factor, I suppose I just hold coaching as a much more integral part of the success of a team that you do. All the talent in the world isn't going to do a thing if it isn't utilized properly.

[Mothman]

Well no one is perfect and sometimes it takes a bigger man to admit a mistake than going forward with said mistake. No matter the argument, the bottom line is Carroll put the right man behind center and he did it from day 1 of the season.

Agreed.

I see nothing to indicate the Vikings would have made a similar move. The revolving carousel of Ponder/Cassel/Freeman is a pretty strong argument against it. Even many of the players expressed their "QB fatigue" saying eventually to just, "start someone and keep with it" (paraphrasing).

I see nothing to indicate the Vikings wouldn't have made that choice but Frazier isn't the Vikings and I don't see how Ponder/Cassel/Freeman are a strong argument against anything other than having a roster without better QB options than Ponder/Cassel/Freeman. If any one of them had actually stepped up and impressed like Wilson did, I seriously doubt there would have been any question about who was starting.

Patterson would be another prime example of a player who should have saw the field earlier but did not. Robinson as an example of a player who should have saw less or a different role. If you go further back, there's the indecision between Schwartz/Fusco, which eventually led to the Vikings losing out on a good guard. If you go further back, there is the Raymond/Sanford situation. One in which I don't think was resolved until somewhere near mid-season.

I am NOT getting into all that again...

As it was mentioned in another thread, Spielman has drafted more pro bowlers than Thompson, I think the hand Frazier was dealt was more than adequate. At some point you need to produce with what you have and that simply wasn't the case.

Spielman hasn't actually drafted more Pro Bowl players than Thompson.

Second, let's acknowledge that having one of those players be among the league's very best QBs makes a huge difference. To put it another way, one of Thompson's Pro Bowl selections is an elite quarterback. One of Spielman's is a kicker.

Third, how many of the Pro Bowl players Spielman drafted were actually on the team and on the field for the majority of games last season? Rice and Harvin are no longer even with the Vikings. Rudolph missed half of the season. Greenway wasn't drafted by Spielman but he was included in that list (which is why it's inaccurate). He's past his prime and played injured for a significant portion of last season. That leaves Peterson, Patterson, Kalil and Walsh.

And I'm sure if you swapped Adrian Peterson for X team, they would be better off too. You're going to have shortcomings somewhere, a good coach needs to be able to maximize what he is given (hence the play the hand you're dealt analogy). I also find it interesting you feel the Vikings coaching staff were scapegoats. Even if you feel talent was the primary problem, that's letting them off awfully easy.

I didn't let them off at all. I said they're being made scapegoats. I didn't say I consider them blameless or that they share no responsibility for the team's disappointing 2013 season.

And to be fair, you didn't think much of Seattle at the beginning of the season either. You found them to be rather overrated or over-hyped if I recall correctly. So I think you should admit that when it comes to Seattle you're carrying forward some of your bias.

I don't understand. How am I carrying forward a supposed Seahawks bias here?

We'll probably never see eye to eye on this point, at least not for the foreseeable future but there are a number of situations where a coaching change has shown a vast improvement in a relatively short period of time.

Yes, and those coaching changes are almost always accompanied by a considerable amount of change in other areas of the team too.

You stated "At some point you need to produce with what you have" but I would argue that the previous coaching staff did exactly that in 2012. The Vikings experienced "a vast improvement in a relatively short period of time" that season, going from a 3 win team to a 10 win team. Losing a bunch of close games last year and dropping back below .500 doesn't mean they couldn't have bounced back with another strong season in 2014. We're not talking about a coaching staff that delivered 3 straight years of losing football and again, let's not pretend that winning consistently and good, reliable play from the QB position don't tend to go hand in hand in the NFL, or that injuries don't impact the outcome of games and seasons.

For the record, I'm not saying talent isn't a factor, I suppose I just hold coaching as a much more integral part of the success of a team that you do. All the talent in the world isn't going to do a thing if it isn't utilized properly.

I agree and believe me, I think coaching is integral to team success. I just don't think coaches can do what you seem to be suggesting they can do and win consistently with whatever hand they are dealt. I'm not going to run down the list of Super Bowl-winning QBs who have had losing seasons or gone on to other teams and failed to replicate their previous success but there are plenty of examples. Those coaches don't just forget how to coach. Their stories illustrate the talent-driven nature of the sport so while it's easy, and accurate, to say "All the talent in the world isn't going to do a thing if it isn't utilized properly", that statement doesn't really address the core issue, which is that a team with insufficient talent in key areas simply isn't going to win consistently, regardless of who is coaching it.

Oh, and I think you're right: we'll probably never see eye to eye on this point. I don't think we're as far apart on it as it might seem though.

[S197]

Spielman hasn't actually drafted more Pro Bowl players than Thompson.

Second, let's nacknowledge that having one of those players be among the league's very best QBs makes a huge difference. To put it another way, one of Thompson's Pro Bowl selections is an elite quarterback. One of Spielman's is a kicker.

Third, how many of the Pro Bowl players Spielman drafted were actually on the team and on the field for the majority of games last season? Rice and Harvin are no longer even with the Vikings. Rudolph missed half of the season. Greenway wasn't drafted by Spielman but he was included in that list (which is why it's inaccurate). He's past his prime and played injured for a significant portion of last season. That leaves Peterson, Patterson, Kalil and Walsh.

Okay the same amount but in a shorter period of time. In any case, I think it shows that the team has some quality personnel and isn't severely lacking in overall talent, just in key areas like QB as you point out. Also, I'm not sure how the stats would play out if you included free agent pickups that made it to the pro bowl. I wonder if that would skew the number towards or against Spielman. Allen and Felton off the top of my head would be two additional pro bowlers added to the team in his tenure. Jennings would be a wash since he played for both teams. I think adding free agents, Green Bay probably comes out ahead as Spielman/Frazier have fallen short in this area.

I didn't let them off at all. I said they're being made scapegoats. I didn't say I consider them blameless or that they share no responsibility for the team's disappointing 2013 season.

But isn't saying they're being made scapegoats letting them off at least to some degree? The term usually implies unmerited criticism. I feel like there's a lot of merit to the criticism.

I don't understand. How am I carrying forward a supposed Seahawks bias here?

It just sounded like some of your comments were marginalizing Carroll and the other coaches impact on the success of the team. It came across to me like starting Wilson was a rather easy decision in your view and that Seattle's defense was a key to the Super Bowl (which is was) but without really recognizing that the defense was formed in large part due to Carroll's eye for talent, where he found a number of late round gems. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements.

You stated "At some point you need to produce with what you have" but I would argue that the previous coaching staff did exactly that in 2012. The Vikings experienced "a vast improvement in a relatively short period of time" that season, going from a 3 win team to a 10 win team. Losing a bunch of close games last year and dropping back below .500 doesn't mean they couldn't have bounced back with another strong season in 2014. We're not talking about a coaching staff that delivered 3 straight years of losing football and again, let's not pretend that winning consistently and good, reliable play from the QB position don't tend to go hand in hand in the NFL, or that injuries don't impact the outcome of games and seasons.

We've been down this road a lot so I don't want to go too far but basically I didn't see any sort of significant improvement. In the end, Frazier was a 21-32 coach. His team nearly broke the franchise record for consecutive losses, his record was horrible after a bye week, his secondary holds the NFL record for longest streak without an interception, and he turned the most stout defense against the run into a defense that was rather poor at, well, everything. A lot of those points span more than a season or are from different seasons so I think it levels out certain things such as injuries or inconsistencies.

Anyway, I tried not to talk about Frazier too much this offseason since it's over and done with, I mainly wanted to say that I think I prioritize coaching more than others.

[dead_poet]

In any case, I think it shows that the team has some quality personnel and isn't severely lacking in overall talent, just in key areas like QB as you point out.

Just jumping in to say that in addition to QB, OG, LB, and, until the last two years, S and CB have also been severely lacking in overall talent. At least in my eyes.

[Mothman]

But isn't saying they're being made scapegoats letting them off at least to some degree? The term usually implies unmerited criticism. I feel like there's a lot of merit to the criticism.

I feel there's some merit to the criticism but I don't think coaching was the team's primary problem the last few years. I think their role in the team's struggles has been seriously overstated.

It just sounded like some of your comments were marginalizing Carroll and the other coaches impact on the success of the team. It came across to me like starting Wilson was a rather easy decision in your view and that Seattle's defense was a key to the Super Bowl (which is was) but without really recognizing that the defense was formed in large part due to Carroll's eye for talent, where he found a number of late round gems. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements.

Well, I wasn't trying to marginalize the role Carroll has played in the success of that team. My point with the decision to play Wilson was that, by the time it was made, it was a rather obvious choice. It still took some resolve to make it but I don't see it as an instinctive choice, where Carroll went with his gut and started a rookie over a veteran even though they were both playing at about the same level. Wilson had clearly put himself at the front of that competition.

As for the defense, I was purely making a point about the difference talent makes on the field, not about how it was acquired. I think Seahawks GM John Schneider deserves as much credit for building that roster as Pete Carroll, but there's no debating that they've done an excellent job.

We've been down this road a lot so I don't want to go too far but basically I didn't see any sort of significant improvement. In the end, Frazier was a 21-32 coach. His team nearly broke the franchise record for consecutive losses, his record was horrible after a bye week, his secondary holds the NFL record for longest streak without an interception, and he turned the most stout defense against the run into a defense that was rather poor at, well, everything

HE did that, eh? It had nothing to do with age, injuries and loss of talent? It had nothing to do with the GM, the man in charge of the roster?

Anyway, I tried not to talk about Frazier too much this offseason since it's over and done with, I mainly wanted to say that I think I prioritize coaching more than others.

I think you do too.

[Mothman]

Just jumping in to say that in addition to QB, OG, LB, and, until the last two years, S and CB have also been severely lacking in overall talent. At least in my eyes.

I'd throw LB and NT in there too.

[mondry]

loooool does this really need to be debated to such extremes? It's pretty clear Frazier and co were awful, horrendous, and bad. At the same time, a decent chunk of the players (especially the ones Frazier started for so long) were awful, horrendous, and bad.

Luckily for you two, we have new faces at both coaches and players! Hurray for change! Let's hope they do better for all of our sakes haha.

I wonder what this has to do with Johnny Manziel though?! Maybe he'll be a new face too

[Mothman]

loooool does this really need to be debated to such extremes? It's pretty clear Frazier and co were awful, horrendous, and bad.

I disagree that it's clear, which is why I keep getting drawn into these debates...

... and whenever S197 and I get into a discussion, it tends to be longwinded!

At the same time, a decent chunk of the players (especially the ones Frazier started for so long) were awful, horrendous, and bad.

Whereas the backups were all superstars in waiting, right?

Luckily for you two, we have new faces at both coaches and players! Hurray for change! Let's hope they do better for all of our sakes haha.

I hope so. If the Vikings don't win quickly and keep it up, the same people talking up the new staff will condemn them as strongly as they condemned the last one.

I wonder what this has to do with Johnny Manziel though?! Maybe he'll be a new face too

Maybe.. and if he is, he'll get the same treatment if he's not successful F-A-S-T. Not a superstar in 10 games? "He sucks!" "He's a bust!" The coaching staff is incompetent because Johnny Football could be great but these bums don't know what they're doing!"

It's the circle of life... or something.

[S197]

Just jumping in to say that in addition to QB, OG, LB, and, until the last two years, S and CB have also been severely lacking in overall talent. At least in my eyes.

I agree but it wasn't due to a lack of trying, especially at S and CB. They tried several times, with early picks (Tyrell Johnson, Chris Cook), mid-round picks (Asher Allen, Marcus McCauley), and even free agency (Madieu Williams). That doesn't even count the other run-of-the-mill players that were trucked in here (your Lito Shepards, Frank Walkers of the world). I remember doing the list of secondary players that have come in here in the last five years or so, it was ridiculously long. Even guys like Cedric Griffen were average at best.

I think at some point you have to stop looking at the players and start looking at the coaches and management. I suppose I got to that point with Frazier (I always figured Spielman would come back so focusing effort on him getting canned seemed wasteful). I mean, when you bring in 20+ players and they all bust out, there's something fundamentally wrong with the system and scouting.

We know a few things after Zimmer was hired and one is that they are now looking at guys they previously were not. Zimmer came in and one of the first things he did is outline his system and tell his scouts the attributes he looks for in his players. We also know through the quarterback talks that Spielman will want everyone to be on the same page if they pick a guy at #8. So to me, it doesn't seem like much of an authoritarian type of structure. Spielman may have final say but it's pretty clear that the coaches are very heavily involved in the process (as they should be).

To bring it full circle, I don't see any reason to believe this wasn't the case when Frazier/Musgrave were here as well. I think their input was highly taken into consideration and therefore the failures should ultimately reflect on them as well. You simply cannot be hired due to your expertise as a secondary and defensive coach, then go on to have one of the weaker secondaries in the league and not be called on it.

Now maybe Spielman is giving Zimmer more input because he's learned from Fraizer's tenure or because Zimmer is "his guy," but I find that unlikely. What I think is more plausible is Frazier was just plain bad at evaluating and implementing a successful system. He may have been a good role model and overall nice guy but that doesn't cut it in the NFL. Spielman has certainly flubbed as well and has much to prove, but as I mentioned, we all pretty much knew he would get his chance with a hand-picked staff so really seeing Frazier/Musgrave go was about the most overhaul we could have reasonably expected.

tl;dr - Talent was lacking but it seriously calls into question the scouting, coaching, and overall system.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I hope so. If the Vikings don't win quickly and keep it up, the same people talking up the new staff will condemn them as strongly as they condemned the last one.

I disagree. I mean can you honestly see this coming year to be as bad or worse than last year? There is no way I can see it.

Also, there is a difference with this coaching staff compared to the last one, we have PROVEN coaches now. Was Frazier, Musgrave or Williams ever proven coaches?? No never. Frazier was a "good" DC running a defense that is slowly becoming ineffective in the NFL. Musgrave has never proved a thing in his life and neither did Williams.

Granted Zimmer isn't a "proven" HEAD coach but at the same time, he has 100x the defensive mind that Frazier ever had. As for Turner, he is a top 5 offense coordinator in the NFL. I mean he had the BROWNS at #17 in total offense last year. If it wasn't for Turner, I can guarantee that Gordon and Cameron wouldnt have had near the years that they did. We have more offensive weapons than Cleveland does. When it comes to Edwards, I'm not worried because obviously he is going to be doing anything and everything Zimmer wants/says.

Can you say ANY of those things about Frazier, Musgrave, and Williams?? Not even close. There is no way I can envision a "horrible" season with these new coaches and the players we already have and what we will bring in.

[Mothman]

I disagree. I mean can you honestly see this coming year to be as bad or worse than last year? There is no way I can see it.

Yes, I can imagine it but I hope I don't have to SEE it. I'm hoping for improvement.

Also, there is a

I don't see it that way. As coordinators, they both coached top 10 defenses in multiple years. Frazier proved he was a good DC. Zimmer has proven that too. It doesn't mean he'll be a good head coach but I hope he'll be a good head coach.

Turner is definitely a more proven OC than Musgrave and that's encouraging but what has Edwards proven as a defensive coordinator?

I think it's a staff with a great chance to succeed IF the talent is upgraded and their teams stay relatively healthy but other than Turner, I don't see it as a given that this staff is an upgrade over the last one. Again, I hope it's an upgrade but even if it is, I don't think the previous staff was bad. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of people who really want to believe Frazier and company were awful because then they can believe all the Vikings needed to do to get better was change coaches.

[VikingLord]

Can you say ANY of those things about Frazier, Musgrave, and Williams?? Not even close. There is no way I can envision a "horrible" season with these new coaches and the players we already have and what we will bring in.

I think they'll revert to the mean and likely pop up significantly this season, although that first stretch of games might be a brutal start. I think it's likely the early part of the season will remind us a lot of last season with several close games, but the end of the season might provide a glimmer of hope heading into the offseason. If anything, I hope to see solid development in the young talent on the team and evidence that the coaches are capable of maximizing the talent on the team and aren't stuck in dogmatic thinking, but can be flexible and creative when exploiting their strengths and maximizing the weaknesses of their opponents.