2016 Vikings Free Agency Thread (News, Rumors, Transactions)

[fiestavike]

What fixation? It's just a way to help designate a successful season.
... and I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I was just pointing to examples of successful Vikings seasons that were immediately followed by unsuccessful seasons. We can agree that a 12 win season is better than a 6 win season, no?
You've made that very clear. However, despite your somewhat unique views regarding results, they actually matter. A good 9 win team might not make the playoffs, which means they won't get a shot to go further. A team that doesn't score enough might not even get to 9 wins. Points matter, winning matters and good teams win. I'm not fixated on win totals. I'm fixated on the end game which, as I've said before, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the ride. However, a team has to win to reach that end game and winning definitely matters once a team reaches it.

i'm getting awfully tired of having to justify why I don't have a near-religious zeal for Mike Zimmer's Vikings and especially for why I actually care about things like wins and production. The importance of both is so obvious that's absurd to have to keep defending it.

Without the results being spread out over time they aren't terribly significant. A 12 win season is very likely to be better than a 6 win season, but its not necessarily so. Its possible that the 6 win team is the better team than the 12 win team. The disparity is big enough that its probably not the case, but as you pointed out, quite a few 10, 11 and 12 win Vikings teams have been exposed as little more than 5 or 6 win teams the following year. It kind of proves the point that it doesn't make a ton of sense to measure a team by outcomes rather than process, which is why good coaches don't do it.

I'd rather have a 9 win team capable of winning the super bowl that doesn't make the playoffs than an 11 win team not capable of winning the SB in the playoffs.

I don't think my views are unique...they are pretty much the standard view in teaching/coaching. The results based view is like NCLB, but focusing on results never works...because its pointless and irrelevant to the process of actually learning, and in the end its destructive. Its why any teams fans would run their team into the ground if they had the power to make the decisions.

Anyway, I certainly don't want you to have a religious zeal for Mike Zimmer. Call for him to be fired for all I care. I think he's a good coach who is doing it the right way with the Vikings, and I have a pretty low opinion of previous Vikings coaches, so I find what he's doing pretty exciting.

[Mothman]

Without the results being spread out over time they aren't terribly significant. A 12 win season is very likely to be better than a 6 win season, but its not necessarily so. Its possible that the 6 win team is the better team than the 12 win team. The disparity is big enough that its probably not the case, but as you pointed out, quite a few 10, 11 and 12 win Vikings teams have been exposed as little more than 5 or 6 win teams the following year. It kind of proves the point that it doesn't make a ton of sense to measure a team by outcomes rather than process, which is why good coaches don't do it.

I'd rather have a 9 win team capable of winning the super bowl that doesn't make the playoffs than an 11 win team not capable of winning the SB in the playoffs.

A 9 win team that doesn't make the playoffs is, by definition, incapable of winning the Super Bowl. They don't even get a shot. I think focus on process over results can be taken to a deconstructive extreme. As we've discussed before, the ultimate point of the process is to yield good results.

I don't think my views are unique...they are pretty much the standard view in teaching/coaching. The results based view is like NCLB, but focusing on results never works...because its pointless and irrelevant to the process of actually learning, and in the end its destructive. Its why any teams fans would run their team into the ground if they had the power to make the decisions.

Results are part of the process, not distinct from it. Focusing on the former is ultimately focusing on the latter. It's a means to an end: results.

That's so obvious that I see no point in arguing about it further.

Anyway, I certainly don't want you to have a religious zeal for Mike Zimmer. Call for him to be fired for all I care. I think he's a good coach who is doing it the right way with the Vikings, and I have a pretty low opinion of previous Vikings coaches, so I find what he's doing pretty exciting.

Like pretty much every Vikings head coach before him, he's teaching his system and philosophy to his players. That's not a new approach so I don't know what is supposedly "right" about it as opposed to what virtually all previous Vikings coaches have done.

[fiestavike]

Results are part of the process, not distinct from it. Focusing on the former is ultimately focusing on the latter. It's a means to an end: results.

That's so obvious that I see no point in arguing about it further.

That doesn't mean that they aren't distinct, and that it doesn't pervert and corrupt the process to focus on the results. It does. The ends and the means aren't just some nebulous muddle. They are distinct. In any case, maybe its semantic because I can't fathom why this is tricky. Its probably best to just drop it.

Like pretty much every Vikings head coach before him, he's teaching his system and philosophy to his players. That's not a new approach so I don't know what is supposedly "right" about it as opposed to what virtually all previous Vikings coaches have done.

So what's the difference between any two coaches? Who cares if we have Mike Zimmer or Dick Jauron or Bill Parcells or Chip Kelly? If you don't think that different philosophies make a huge difference in how coaches teach their system to their players I'm just at a loss.

[Mothman]

That doesn't mean that they aren't distinct, and that it doesn't pervert and corrupt the process to focus on the results. It does. The ends and the means aren't just some nebulous muddle. They are distinct. In any case, maybe its semantic because I can't fathom why this is tricky. Its probably best to just drop it.

It's not tricky at all. The process and the results are inextricably linked together. The purpose of the former is to lead to the latter. I fully grasp the significance of that relationship, and have told you so many times, and yet you went right back to this stuff just because I posted a few specific win totals while making a point. Somehow that meant I was showing a "fixation" on win totals. Apparently, just mentioning them is enough to undermine the process.

The whole argument reeks of a "participation trophy" culture. There's an inevitable point in the process where winning, and results, matter. I have no doubt Mike Zimmer would view it that way. Why is it a problem if I do too?

So what's the difference between any two coaches?

You're asking me? You said Zimmer "is doing it the right way with the Vikings, and I have a pretty low opinion of previous Vikings coaches" so I'd rather start with why you think that's so. What distinguishes Zimmer from those previous coaches? Why is he doing it "the right way" when, presumably, the others didn't do it the right way? What's the right way?

If you don't think that different philosophies make a huge difference in how coaches teach their system to their players I'm just at a loss.

I said Zimmer's teaching his system and philosophy to his players and that's not a new approach. I didn't say different coaching philosophies don't make a difference.

Edit: I'm just going add this:

I find it absurd that I keep being taken to task on a Vikings board for wanting the team to win, for wanting them to be better, as if that's somehow in opposition to what most fans want. It seems utterly ridiculous.

[fiestavike]

It's not tricky at all. The process and the results are inextricably linked together. The purpose of the former is to lead to the latter. I fully grasp the significance of that relationship, and have told you so many times, and yet you went right back to this stuff just because I posted a few specific win totals while making a point. Somehow that meant I was showing a "fixation" on win totals. Apparently, just mentioning them is enough to undermine the process.

The whole argument reeks of a "participation trophy" culture. There's an inevitable point in the process where winning, and results, matter. I have no doubt Mike Zimmer would view it that way. Why is it a problem if I do too?
You're asking me? You said Zimmer "is doing it the right way with the Vikings, and I have a pretty low opinion of previous Vikings coaches" so I'd rather start with why you think that's so. What distinguishes Zimmer from those previous coaches? Why is he doing it "the right way" when, presumably, the others didn't do it the right way? What's the right way?
I said Zimmer's teaching his system and philosophy to his players and that's not a new approach. I didn't say different coaching philosophies don't make a difference.

Its frustrating because I always felt you and I communicated clearly and effectively, but on this issue its just a lost cause. If what I am saying reads to you as somehow part of "participation trophy" culture I have just utterly failed to get the point across. I just give up.

[dead_poet]

#Vikings have had interest in WR Andre Holmes; sounds like the Raiders are making a strong push to keep him in Oakland.

[Mothman]

Its frustrating because I always felt you and I communicated clearly and effectively, but on this issue its just a lost cause. If what I am saying reads to you as somehow part of "participation trophy" culture I have just utterly failed to get the point across. I just give up.

Sorry, I just don't know how else to interpret your comments. From what you've written, your devotion to the importance of process seems almost puritanical. Merely listing the number of wins in particular seasons in service of a point seemed to offend that "process sensibility".

Were talking about professional football, not one of the steps along the path to the pros. There's no graduation rate to be concerned about, no preparation for the next level to put before results because there is no next level. At the pro level, results are the point, the bottom line. The teams are training, practicing and studying to win. There's a path to those wins but getting there is the goal. I'm not uninformed on this subject. I get the idea of focusing on process, rather than outcome, and letting the outcome take care of itself. I get that a great effort in a loss can, in some ways, be more satisfying than a poor effort in a win. However, none of that changes the fact that achieving the desired outcome is the point of the process at the pro level. It's why coaches and players get paid and why they don't last long when they don't win. If the process doesn't take care of itself, if the wins don't come, we all know heads eventually roll.

You haven't failed to convey that putting a good team "culture" in place is important or that teaching players the system and getting them on the same page is important. I knew all of that anyway. I grasp the importance of good process. It's been absolutely integral in my own career. However, I take issue with that seemingly puritanical focus I mentioned above. Discussing past results is hardly a perversion or corruption of the process. For that matter, neither is focusing on current results. Analyzing results, learning from mistakes, etc. is a part of the development of an NFL team. That's why teams study film of their performances.

As fans, we're not a part of the process. We just watch it play out so discussing results has no impact on the team's development process. In a version of the NFL where results didn't matter there would be no need to even play the games. Teams could just practice, scrimmage and execute—that would be enough! They could be judged like gymnasts or cheerleading squads in competition. The squad that carried out the process best would be awarded first place.

It's absurd to take me task for wanting the Vikes to win, for talking about past Vikes W/L records, etc. I resent seeing passive/aggressive comments like the one Mondry made above that imply I'm just an embittered fan who will never be happy with the team no matter what happens, that I'm some cynic who always assumes the worst outcome. That's simply not true. The idea that I'm fixated on win totals gets the same classification. Sorry, guys. I'm certainly not out to offend you either. I simply want the Vikings to achieve what so many other NFL teams have achieved: winning a Super Bowl. It should be perfectly fine if I'm not wholly satisfied with the season they had last year or if I don't want to see them have a long, Dennis Green-like or worse, Marvin Lewis-like run of limited success without a big, final payoff.

i don't care if they do it in a 10 win season or a 15 win season but it's fun to see the team achieve. It's fun to see wins. I enjoyed watching them make the playoffs as the winner of the NFC North last year more than I would have enjoyed seeing them reach the playoffs as a wild card while Green Bay won the division again. They achieved a little more with that division title and as a lifelong fan, that result was enjoyable but no wholly satisfying. Why on earth is that view problematic? I ask because the implication of some of the posts I'm reading is that these reactions are somehow wrong or inappropriate, that I should just be happy with the effort, happy they made the playoffs at all. That's good enough.

I apologize for the rant but I hope people are still reading and I hope some of you can understand my passion on this subject. I don't think any Vikings fan should have to apologize for wanting the team to win. I'm certainly not going to do it.

[TxVikingfan]

Buccaneers Sign CB Josh Robinson

[Mothman]

I wish him good luck (honestly)!

Has anybody heard any news about Matt Asiata?

[dead_poet]

I wish him good luck (honestly)!

Has anybody heard any news about Matt Asiata?

Last I heard he was getting some nibbles.

[Mothman]

Last I heard he was getting some nibbles.

So nobody has "hooked" him yet, eh?

What's your gut feeling? Will the Vikes re-sign him?

[dead_poet]

So according to Michael Griffin tackle Andre Smith will leave today from his visit with the #Vikings and take one more visit.

[dead_poet]

So nobody has "hooked" him yet, eh?

What's your gut feeling? Will the Vikes re-sign him?

I think they'd like to and I'd imagine the feeling is mutual. He's a "Zimmer Guy." But, as with most Rick stuff, it has to be at the right price. I'd like to think it gets done.

[Mothman]

I think they'd like to and I'd imagine the feeling is mutual. He's a "Zimmer Guy." But, as with most Rick stuff, it has to be at the right price. I'd like to think it gets done.

He's been a solid, reliable player for them so hopefully, they can work something out.

[dead_poet]

He's been a solid, reliable player for them so hopefully, they can work something out.

I've seen reports that the Vikings are still in talks with Greenway, Newman. Asiata omitted. Not sure if that means no talks or left out because he's not as "high-profile" to be included. He may go the route of Felton, unfortunately. But Toby is available if needed.