The State of the Vikings

[John_Viveiros]

For me, it's all about the QB. If Teddy Bridgewater plays from here on out the way he played in the last five weeks, the Vikings are fine - frankly, no other players needed. Desired, yes, needed, maybe not. Just get our guys healthy!

Why do I say that? Consider what happens to a team considered to be a great team - the Packers. They aren't a great team. They are a mediocre team with a great QB. I'm watching them looking pretty mediocre today against the Cowboys with an injured Rodgers. Last year, they were 6-2 with Rodgers (projects to 12-4, just like this year). Without him, they were 2-5-1 (projects to 5-11). That's seven wins per year from better QB play.

The Colts are in a similar situation. In 2010 they were 10-6 with Peyton Manning. In 2011, they were 2-14 with Curtis Painter (IIRC). In 2012, they were 11-5 with Andrew Luck. So good QB play was responsible for about eight wins per year there.

Watching this year, with the injuries and suspensions, I feel like Teddy was probably worth two or three wins (he could be worth more in 2015 - he wasn't always the starter, and he started slowly). With Ponder at QB, no Adrian, bad offensive line, and limited Rudolph, I would guess we would have looked at about four wins total, even with the defensive improvement.

[The Breeze]

I think the point Jim makes about changing the culture is spot on. I believe there is way too much emphasis in general on guys potentials and their athletic abilities vs guys who just put their helmets on and find a way to get it done without excuses.

It helps immensely to have an HC QB combo where it's understood what is expected and what the philosophy is. It makes all the other skill positions easier to maintain.

Here is an amazing set of numbers(to me any way)

The all-time wins leader for a Patriot coach is BB at 175, no surprise.
The all-time leading passer for them is Brady with over 53,000yds, again no surprise.
The all-time leading WR? Stanley Morgan with 10,352yds.
All-time leading rusher? Sam Cunningham with a mere 5,453yds(that's like 4 seasons of AD)....the same Sam Cunningham who's last legitimate season was 89 carries in 1981, no connection to Brady and Bill.

Stanley Morgan never caught a pass from Brady.

Randy Moss set a TD record with Brady and they had an undefeated season. BB got rid of him while he still had value.
Chad Johnson had troubling grasping the offense...they got rid of him ASAP.

Parcells was a master of this. Pete Carroll gets it.

There is a certain type and attitude of player that fits in there...or they are gone. It all stems from the HC having a clear understanding of what it is he's trying to manifest and adapting as the situations evolve rather than implement some system he's learned and is chained to.

While what goes on in NE may be a bit of an anomaly as far as success is determined, the cultural consistency is not. The Ravens have it...the Steelers....Seahawks....Broncos etc. It waxes and wanes in other places but the consistency comes from the top down and is often exemplified in the mannerisms of the teams defenses and line play. Once they get that Golden QB they take off.

I like that Zimmer has logged so much time in the AFC North. Outside of Cleveland all those teams up there seem to have established the 'consistency culture'.

As for the what it is about players who can't finish games....I think it's just motivation. There's plenty of talent just not enough "want to". When there are guys starting who lack the basic fundamental understanding of the position they are playing it doesn't really establish a tone of "hey it's a real privilege and something to take pride in being part of this team".
Players need to play like their jobs are on the line and knowing they can be replaced anytime.

rant over

[VikingLord]

Excellent post. I agree with pretty much all of it, especially the need to make more than a 3 year commitment to the coaching staff. That's not enough.

Why would the team want to make more than a 3-year initial commitment to the coaching staff? Shouldn't the commitment come after that staff has actually shown it is capable of winning? Would the Vikings have been better off had they committed to what turned out to be a bad coach (like Childress) for, say, 6 years?

Commitment should be based on results. It's possible for new coaches to turn things around within 3 years. There are several recent examples of just that happening - the Seahawks, the 49ers, and the Cardinals all did it recently, so that amount of time is reasonable to make an evaluation of a coaching staff and a decision as to whether that staff merits an extension.

The 3-year coaching shuffle is not the problem - it's a symptom of a bigger problem, that being the failure of the Vikings as an organization in properly evaluating potential coaches and making poor decisions when it comes to the head coach. What they should do is scrap the process that led to those results (in their case, the Wilfs should just keep their noses out of it entirely would be a great start), and put in a process more likely to lead to a better result. Stability at any position comes from a combination of proper and honest evaluation, hard work, and good fortune (in that order). If you fail on the first step, then you're already way behind and your chances of success are much smaller.

As far as Zimmer is concerned, the jury is out. While I saw reasons to be encouraged, I saw other things that were discouraging. Based on what I've seen so far, I am not sold that I would want him or his staff extended just yet.

[frosted]

Vikings were 7th in the NFC in total point differential this season.

*Sips tea*

[The Breeze]

Why would the team want to make more than a 3-year initial commitment to the coaching staff? Shouldn't the commitment come after that staff has actually shown it is capable of winning? Would the Vikings have been better off had they committed to what turned out to be a bad coach (like Childress) for, say, 6 years?

Commitment should be based on results. It's possible for new coaches to turn things around within 3 years. There are several recent examples of just that happening - the Seahawks, the 49ers, and the Cardinals all did it recently, so that amount of time is reasonable to make an evaluation of a coaching staff and a decision as to whether that staff merits an extension.

The 3-year coaching shuffle is not the problem - it's a symptom of a bigger problem, that being the failure of the Vikings as an organization in properly evaluating potential coaches and making poor decisions when it comes to the head coach. What they should do is scrap the process that led to those results (in their case, the Wilfs should just keep their noses out of it entirely would be a great start), and put in a process more likely to lead to a better result. Stability at any position comes from a combination of proper and honest evaluation, hard work, and good fortune (in that order). If you fail on the first step, then you're already way behind and your chances of success are much smaller.

As far as Zimmer is concerned, the jury is out. While I saw reasons to be encouraged, I saw other things that were discouraging. Based on what I've seen so far, I am not sold that I would want him or his staff extended just yet.

My point is about the coaching staffs mentality.
You can fire a coach anytime you want. And if you do you eat the cost....you're a billionaire.

I don't disagree that that the Wilfs have whiffed in the HC dept. Childress was extended after a couple of seasons then fired. It could be argued that his handling of the QB situation may have been affected by his own contract situation. The having to win it all now vs building a long term team culture that is competitive for years is garbage to me.

Contracts aside, my point is it's really unrealistic to expect a first time HC to shift things in just 3 seasons...especially without the franchise QB.

Cleveland sure is happy they got rid of Belichick lol

[PurpleMustReign]

Cleveland sure is happy they got rid of Belichick lol

I bet if they had kept Shottenheimer they would have been more successful in the 90s too.

[Mothman]

Why would the team want to make more than a 3-year initial commitment to the coaching staff? Shouldn't the commitment come after that staff has actually shown it is capable of winning? Would the Vikings have been better off had they committed to what turned out to be a bad coach (like Childress) for, say, 6 years?

Commitment should be based on results. It's possible for new coaches to turn things around within 3 years. There are several recent examples of just that happening - the Seahawks, the 49ers, and the Cardinals all did it recently, so that amount of time is reasonable to make an evaluation of a coaching staff and a decision as to whether that staff merits an extension.

The 3-year coaching shuffle is not the problem - it's a symptom of a bigger problem, that being the failure of the Vikings as an organization in properly evaluating potential coaches and making poor decisions when it comes to the head coach. What they should do is scrap the process that led to those results (in their case, the Wilfs should just keep their noses out of it entirely would be a great start), and put in a process more likely to lead to a better result. Stability at any position comes from a combination of proper and honest evaluation, hard work, and good fortune (in that order). If you fail on the first step, then you're already way behind and your chances of success are much smaller.

As far as Zimmer is concerned, the jury is out. While I saw reasons to be encouraged, I saw other things that were discouraging. Based on what I've seen so far, I am not sold that I would want him or his staff extended just yet.

I think commitment and results are deeply intertwined. It's possible for a coach to turn a team around in 3 years but 3 years is a short window in which to do it. Selecting the right coach is crucial but if a coach doesn't get the support he needs from the organization, he won't be able to produce the consistently positive results he needs to get that short 3 year deal extended and pretty soon, the team is on the roller coaster we see in places Cleveland and Oakland.

[DK Sweets]

Jim, in reference to your "new sheriff in town" comment, I could see the organization looking at this year as the perfect time to do it. I think the organization wants everything to be clicking when that new stadium opens, so if they think changes need to be made they would prefer it to be in this final purgatory season.

[Mothman]

Jim, in reference to your "new sheriff in town" comment, I could see the organization looking at this year as the perfect time to do it. I think the organization wants everything to be clicking when that new stadium opens, so if they think changes need to be made they would prefer it to be in this final purgatory season.

Good point. I hope that's exactly the attitude they take.

[VikingLord]

I think commitment and results are deeply intertwined. It's possible for a coach to turn a team around in 3 years but 3 years is a short window in which to do it. Selecting the right coach is crucial but if a coach doesn't get the support he needs from the organization, he won't be able to produce the consistently positive results he needs to get that short 3 year deal extended and pretty soon, the team is on the roller coaster we see in places Cleveland and Oakland.

So you think teams like Oakland and Cleveland are on the coaching carousel due to their consistent failure to support the head coaches they select and not because the head coaches they have selected were not up to the job to begin with?

It seems to me those teams have much the same issue the Vikings have had in recent years when it comes to their process of evaluation and selection of the head coach. Poor evaluation/emotional decision-making during the hiring process is leading to poor choices which in turn leads to poor results. If anything, these teams on the coaching carousel could be accused of being *overly* supportive of their poor choices, at least initially, often looking the other way while the questionable coaches make questionable decisions both on and off the field.

Getting off the carousel requires first hiring a GM, then letting him make the calls he needs to make free from their interference. I'm optimistic Zimmer has a better chance to succeed largely because it appears the Wilfs finally let Spielman make the call on the head coach. We can argue whether Spielman is a good GM, but his chances of making the right call on the head coach should be greater than their chances. I'd say it sure couldn't be worse than the decisions the Wilfs have made.

[Mothman]

So you think teams like Oakland and Cleveland are on the coaching carousel due to their consistent failure to support the head coaches they select and not because the head coaches they have selected were not up to the job to begin with?

That's not what I'm saying. Honestly, I think either choice of answer is too simplistic because both choices imply that success or failure is all about the head coach. There are plenty of other factors that contribute to winning and losing, not the least of which is management (cap management, personnel management, ownership... all of it).

[The Breeze]

I think the criteria for what is improvement is critical.

You hire a rookie coach and he hires his coordinators. There's no franchise QB. The team has been in disarray.


The above can be said for several franchises. Most often the coach comes in and the key players have been there longer and have to learn the new system, which may not fit with the players he had no part in drafting.

Then he's given 3 seasons to make some kind of headway...but that headway is a very ambiguous benchmark. By the time the 3rd season rolls around, if he's not already extended, things can and often do get wonky.

For the Vikings, I remain more skeptical of the people determining the criteria on what is good HC performance and doing the drafting than I am of the current staff. I think Zimmer and Turner have forgotten more about football than just about everyone above them ever knew and that includes what it takes to create a winning culture in the locker room, which is something the Wilfs and Spielman know next to nothing about if they know anything at all.

It's being rumored that John Fox may be out of a job because he didn't win yesterday. That guy is an absolute stud of a head coach. His QBs have been Jake Delohmme(sp) Tim Tebow and the geriatric Peyton Manning.

[Mothman]

I think the criteria for what is improvement is critical.

You hire a rookie coach and he hires his coordinators. There's no franchise QB. The team has been in disarray.

The above can be said for several franchises. Most often the coach comes in and the key players have been there longer and have to learn the new system, which may not fit with the players he had no part in drafting.

Then he's given 3 seasons to make some kind of headway...but that headway is a very ambiguous benchmark. By the time the 3rd season rolls around, if he's not already extended, things can and often do get wonky.

Exactly. A coach who is already coaching for his job in his third season is likely to be a little desperate. Putting a coach in that situation leaves an air of uncertainty over the whole team. I suspect that affects players as well as coaches.

I like what you said about headway being an ambiguous benchmark. I understand that the NFL is a bottom line business and that winning is that bottom line but that doesn't mean an NFL owner has to be a hammerhead about things. As you pointed out, coaches often come into situations that are far less than ideal. Chances are they're being hired to "fix" a "broken" team. More often than not, there's not a franchise QB in place so finding one is usually goal #1 and if the team strikes out in that department, odds are that coach isn't going to have the team rising steadily upward in the standings each year unless he has awfully good fortune with the rest of the roster. Consequently, while results and commitment need to be intertwined, winning shouldn't be the only result considered. Since winning IS an inevitable expectation, the coach needs the support and full commitment of the organization to achieve that goal.

There are obviously situations where a team should bail on a coach early, where things aren't working out and he's losing the locker room, but generally speaking, a team needs to give a coach time to create a good locker room culture and the support (in every sense of that word) necessary to field a consistent winner.

For the Vikings, I remain more skeptical of the people determining the criteria on what is good HC performance and doing the drafting than I am of the current staff. I think Zimmer and Turner have forgotten more about football than just about everyone above them ever knew and that includes what it takes to create a winning culture in the locker room, which is something the Wilfs and Spielman know next to nothing about if they know anything at all.

I'm guessing Spielman knows something about it. He was on a Division I-AA champion as a college freshman but that's a far cry from the NFL and overall, I share your concern. I'm definitely more skeptical about the people above the head coach in the organization than I am about the head coach.

[The Breeze]

Exactly. A coach who is already coaching for his job in his third season is likely to be a little desperate. Putting a coach in that situation leaves an air of uncertainty over the whole team. I suspect that affects players as well as coaches.

I like what you said about headway being an ambiguous benchmark. I understand that the NFL is a bottom line business and that winning is that bottom line but that doesn't mean an NFL owner has to be a hammerhead about things. As you pointed out, coaches often come into situations that are far less than ideal. Chances are they're being hired to "fix" a "broken" team. More often than not, there's not a franchise QB in place so finding one is usually goal #1 and if the team strikes out in that department, odds are that coach isn't going to have the team rising steadily upward in the standings each year unless he has awfully good fortune with the rest of the roster. Consequently, while results and commitment need to be intertwined, winning shouldn't be the only result considered. Since winning IS an inevitable expectation, the coach needs the support and full commitment of the organization to achieve that goal.

There are obviously situations where a team should bail on a coach early, where things aren't working out and he's losing the locker room, but generally speaking, a team needs to give a coach time to create a good locker room culture and the support (in every sense of that word) necessary to field a consistent winner.
I'm guessing Spielman knows something about it. He was on a Division I-AA champion as a college freshman but that's a far cry from the NFL and overall, I share your concern. I'm definitely more skeptical about the people above the head coach in the organization than I am about the head coach.

I'm not really down on Spielman...I mean he did hire Zimmer/Turner, at least I think he did. I think he has put the cart before the horse in some senses with some draft picks....but that just may be an appearance issue more than actual mishandling of anything. He's under the same kind of incentive to meet with success as any HC as far as I know, and that could temper his attitude when building the team. Plus he may not be the best judge of talent at certain positions, which is where guys like Turner and Zimmer are huge boons.

But you really expanded on my point well and highlighted much of what I'm seeing in the league in terms of the instant gratification dynamic that many organizations project.

I'm just seeing that if you lack the polished franchise QB it's far better to build up the lines and defense before going crazy at the "skill" positions. It is so easy to grab a seasoned wideout if you have a good QB. It's easy to get quality production out of an average RB if you have a solid group up front. The Patriots have done it for 10 years and interestingly enough their superbowl runs have occurred when they have had above average defenses.

My brother is a Skins fans and is really irked by it. The players on that team get new schemes on a regular basis and zero consistency. I think that new GM they hired will be good for them.....but they are decimated at QB and won't get any of the top guys this season.

I see what the Vikings have done as a step in the right direction. I just hope the Wilfs are patient with the process.

[808vikingsfan]

Didn't know where to put this and didn't want to start a new thread.

Found at another site.





Interesting stat that someone there posted:

Andy Daltons legacy. 0-14 in playoffs. Never missed a post season.