How do you like having a coach who says after a loss that it is not the end of the world

[Purplepain2018]

Zimmer has been saying this after losses to both Kansas City and again last night after losing to Seattle that in losing "it is not the end of the world....we still have a lot of football left to play." What kind of mindset is this sending to the team, the coaching staff and to the fans? Of course, being a realist, we realize that the Vikings are not going to go undefeated. However, the importance of winning these types of games are HUGE!!!

First, to win on the road to a Seahawks team that could be in the NFC championship would have been incredible to this team going forward as they play more games on the road in the playoffs. Seattle is definitely one of the toughest places to play and to come out of there with a win would have done wonders for the Vikings confidence. So to make the statement that losing is not the end of the world is just so wrong.

Second, the Vikings are trying to stay even with the Packers until week 16 when GB comes to US Bank Stadium for perhaps the NFC North division and a first round bye....so again to say that losing last night is not the end of the world is just beyond me.

Third, we all know the Vikings just play better at home. They are undefeated so far and the emotion they have when they know they have the crowd behind them is when they play at another level. Any coach would want to be playing playoff games at home instead of the road...so to say after losing to Seattle it is not the end of the world is just crazy!!!!

[VikingLord]

Zimmer has been saying this after losses to both Kansas City and again last night after losing to Seattle that in losing "it is not the end of the world....we still have a lot of football left to play." What kind of mindset is this sending to the team, the coaching staff and to the fans? Of course, being a realist, we realize that the Vikings are not going to go undefeated. However, the importance of winning these types of games are HUGE!!!

First, to win on the road to a Seahawks team that could be in the NFC championship would have been incredible to this team going forward as they play more games on the road in the playoffs. Seattle is definitely one of the toughest places to play and to come out of there with a win would have done wonders for the Vikings confidence. So to make the statement that losing is not the end of the world is just so wrong.

Second, the Vikings are trying to stay even with the Packers until week 16 when GB comes to US Bank Stadium for perhaps the NFC North division and a first round bye....so again to say that losing last night is not the end of the world is just beyond me.

Third, we all know the Vikings just play better at home. They are undefeated so far and the emotion they have when they know they have the crowd behind them is when they play at another level. Any coach would want to be playing playoff games at home instead of the road...so to say after losing to Seattle it is not the end of the world is just crazy!!!!

What's he supposed to say? He doesn't really have much choice but to say what he said.

With that said...

If the Vikes make the playoffs, and right now, that is still a big "IF" IMHO, they'll be on the road for every game where they last. As things stand, they'll likely be the 6th seed, which means they likely would win an outdoor game at Lambeau in the 1st round. They'll be no home cooking for this team should they be fortunate enough to make the playoffs.

[Dames]

Well, I think he's exactly right. Yep, it makes it a little harder, and I have no doubt they all would have preferred to win. But, first and foremost, they are trying to make the playoffs. Losing last night, while not ideal, does not knock them out of the playoffs. Not even close. So... it's not the end of the world... at all.

Would you prefer he came out and said "Welp, we're screwed. I'm shutting this down for year."

[Dames]

With that said...

If the Vikes make the playoffs, and right now, that is still a big "IF" IMHO, they'll be on the road for every game where they last. As things stand, they'll likely be the 6th seed, which means they likely would win an outdoor game at Lambeau in the 1st round. They'll be no home cooking for this team should they be fortunate enough to make the playoffs.

Has anyone seen my optimistic friend? He was here last week, but I can't find him now.

[VikingLord]

With that said...

If the Vikes make the playoffs, and right now, that is still a big "IF" IMHO, they'll be on the road for every game where they last. As things stand, they'll likely be the 6th seed, which means they likely would win an outdoor game at Lambeau in the 1st round. They'll be no home cooking for this team should they be fortunate enough to make the playoffs.

Has anyone seen my optimistic friend? He was here last week, but I can't find him now.

I think your optimistic friend got a little less optimistic after having a bad case of deja vu courtesy of the Seattle Seahawks, which makes him wonder if the entire season will be a case of deja vu by the end.

[CharVike]

Well, I think he's exactly right. Yep, it makes it a little harder, and I have no doubt they all would have preferred to win. But, first and foremost, they are trying to make the playoffs. Losing last night, while not ideal, does not knock them out of the playoffs. Not even close. So... it's not the end of the world... at all.

Would you prefer he came out and said "Welp, we're screwed. I'm shutting this down for year."

Come up with something a little better than the same old BS. Something like we just didn't execute the way we should blh blah blah. Nothing that happens is the end of the world. But show a little concern. He's basically saying Oh well it don't really matter. I can't wait for the day he gets the boot. He can't get us to the show. That's been proven. Even the year with a horse shoe up his #### we didn't make it. Enough is enough. He was given a fair chance. And he is this defensive wizz and we don't do that part very well either. And he makes zero changes. Do something.

[Dames]

Well, I think he's exactly right. Yep, it makes it a little harder, and I have no doubt they all would have preferred to win. But, first and foremost, they are trying to make the playoffs. Losing last night, while not ideal, does not knock them out of the playoffs. Not even close. So... it's not the end of the world... at all.

Would you prefer he came out and said "Welp, we're screwed. I'm shutting this down for year."

Come up with something a little better than the same old BS. Something like we just didn't execute the way we should blh blah blah. Nothing that happens is the end of the world. But show a little concern. He's basically saying Oh well it don't really matter. I can't wait for the day he gets the boot. He can't get us to the show. That's been proven. Even the year with a horse shoe up his #### we didn't make it. Enough is enough. He was given a fair chance. And he is this defensive wizz and we don't do that part very well either. And he makes zero changes. Do something.

He's done that many times before too. Even called out players in the press. He got reamed for that too. He probably can't win with whatever he says. Zim clearly hates talking to the press, so I think he just says stuff to get through it. That doesn't bother me. Does anyone genuinely think he doesn't care? Come on. If you've listened to him before, you know he clearly does. I really hate coach-speech. Say what you thin the media wants to hear crap. Zim used to provide a littel more interesting things early with the Vikings. He's learned that just gets him in trouble. I don't really listen to much of what he says after games, because honestly it doesn't really matter much. What happens during the games is all I care about.

That said, I agree that whatever they are doing on defense is not working, and it needs to be fixed. The problem is our schedule is a lot softer for the next couple weeks, so even if they suddenly look a lot better... is anyone really going to trust it? I'm not. This defense is just not that good at this point. I hope it's scheme and they can adjust, but I don't know. We have multiple issues that have been exposed by the good teams we faced lately. All we can do is hope they fix it in the next 4 weeks. We'll probably never be the same defense we had a couple years ago, but if we can be serviceable, our offense can carry us a bit.

[Dames]

And he makes zero changes. Do something.

I don't really think that's true, by the way. I've read a few things lately that suggest the players were thinking too much on the field. If so, that means that they tried to implement something over the bye, and the players were not quite comfortable with it yet. Maybe it's a plan that will work after a few games... or maybe it was too complicated.

[VikingLord]

And he makes zero changes. Do something.

I don't really think that's true, by the way. I've read a few things lately that suggest the players were thinking too much on the field. If so, that means that they tried to implement something over the bye, and the players were not quite comfortable with it yet. Maybe it's a plan that will work after a few games... or maybe it was too complicated.

Thinking too much?



I seriously laughed out loud when I read that.

To me, the game came down to a few big turnovers and that fake punt coupled with the Vikings inability to defend the pass or the run. So, a handful of key mistakes on offense that led to short fields for the Seahawks, a special teams failure, and the defense getting pushed around basically with a max package.

The energy level and speed of the team seemed fine. They weren't more energetic than the Seahawks, but neither were they less energetic.

[Dames]

Thinking too much?



I seriously laughed out loud when I read that.

To me, the game came down to a few big turnovers and that fake punt coupled with the Vikings inability to defend the pass or the run. So, a handful of key mistakes on offense that led to short fields for the Seahawks, a special teams failure, and the defense getting pushed around basically with a max package.

The energy level and speed of the team seemed fine. They weren't more energetic than the Seahawks, but neither were they less energetic.

Glad I could help with that. That suggestion didn't come from me by the way. I'm not even sure it's true, but to be fair, if players are not quite comfortable in their scheme it CAN actually lead to thinking too much instead of just making plays It's probably just excuses that someone made up trying to explain the issues on D. I mean, it's hard to explain sometimes.

[VikingLord]

Glad I could help with that. That suggestion didn't come from me by the way. I'm not even sure it's true, but to be fair, if players are not quite comfortable in their scheme it CAN actually lead to thinking too much instead of just making plays It's probably just excuses that someone made up trying to explain the issues on D. I mean, it's hard to explain sometimes.

Yeah, I understand. After a loss people want explanations, and thinking too much is an explanation. It's just December. It's a little late in the season to be making major changes that require a lot of thinking.

The defense had no answer to the Seahawks max package on the ground, and while I thought they did an OK job limiting Wilson and the Seahawk passing game overall, it still wasn't good enough. But it started with the inability to stop the run.

The Vikings DL got pushed around on the ground. It wasn't the worst physical domination I've seen, but it was fairly rare when a Vikings DL made a tackle against the run. The Seahawks brought in their extra OL and watched how the Vikings responded on defense. The Vikings didn't change anything. They were more afraid of Wilson going downfield for quick scores than the Seahawks pushing them around on the ground, probably with good reason, so Carroll just went with that.

Since Zimmer knew his defense couldn't stop both at the same time, he simply chose the approach that was a slower death. It was clear around 5 minutes into the 3rd quarter that the Vikings couldn't stop the Seahawks max package and run game. The big completion against Rhodes didn't help. If Zimmer had any thoughts about changing something to limit the Seahawks on the ground as they approached the 4th quarter, that single play was enough to dissuade him.

To be fair to Zimmer, if I knew my defense couldn't stop Seattle and had to chose between limiting their passing game or their run game, I'd probably have chosen the same and hoped my offense could put up enough points when it had the ball to win. It's hard to criticize the decision given the fact that the defense just wasn't good enough to shut down the Seahawks playing the base package. Few defenses in the league probably are good enough to do that against the Seahawks.

[mansquatch]

Well I can't speak for Zimmer, but I do know that a lot of the leading NFC teams will play each other in the coming weeks. Given that the teams are so tight it is possible that the positioning will shuffle some.

DAL is basically a lock to be the #4 seed. NO, SEA, SF, GB, and yes, MN will duke it out for the other 5 spots.

Consider:
SF remaining games: @Saints, Falcons, Rams, @Seahawks
SEA remaining games: @Rams, @Panthers, Cardinals, 49ers
NO remaining games: 49ers, Colts, @Titans, @Panthers
GB remaining games: Redskins, Bears, @MIN, @Lions
MN remaining games: Lions, @Chargers, Packers, Bears

Issue we have is GB has the easiest schedule by far. This is slightly offset by the fact that of the 5 teams on this list, GB is the biggest poser. We need them to choke one and then we need to beat them. Looking at the schedule it doesn't look too great. Of all those games the only one that seems like it would have a shot is the Bears, but those are all dysfunctional teams, Redskins and Lions are extremely Dysfunctional. If they lose though, the door is open. No losses other than against us and then we are the 5 or 6 seed despite a 12-4 record. Obnoxious, thanks NFL schedulers and BS officiating crews.

For the other teams: SF could easily lose 2 of the last 4 games. NO Could lose 3 or eve 4 of those games, they barely beat a hapless Panthers squad at home. SEA is the biggest issue. I can see them running the table. However three of those games are divisional opponents and they'll play SEA tougher than other teams. @LAR could surprise. 49ers will likely be feeling the heat to stay on top. If that is the case, they'll show up to to play in week 17.

Biggest thing is GB choking out a game. We beat them and go into it 12-4 and we might be #2 seed or even #1 if the cards fall right. Sucks we lost that MNF game. Sucks more we lost the KC and CHI. The SEA game was the toughest on the schedule. We needed the game vs. the Bears or the game vs. KC. Those were the missed opportunities on the schedule.

[psjordan]

Eh, it's not the end of the world to have a coach who says after a loss that it is not the end of the world.

Lot's of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing going on here post the Monday night loss.

My summation is that we have a decent front office/coaching staff but they are by no means "great" by any standard I can come up with. My win/lose/playoff/superbowl expectations typically match that scenario, in that I was not surprised we won in DAL and also not surprised we lost in SEA. I will not be surprised if we make the playoffs and I will not be surprised when we lose in the first round. I will be shocked if we win an away playoff game. That is what these types of staffs produce IMO.

The topic of "talent vs. coaching" came up in the post-mortem thread, and here's my thought - no matter how much talent they have coming in, players get BETTER with good-to-great coaching. If you want to know if you have a great coaching staff, subjectively count up the number of players that have gotten better since they joined the team with that staff. Do we have a great defensive secondary coaching staff, including up to our defensive-minded HC? Well, how many of our DB's have gotten noticeably better since they arrived?

As long as this FO and this coaching staff remain in place, my expectations (for coaching, if not the entire team) will remain planted firmly in the decent-to-pretty-good-probably-not-embarassing category. Those folks don't lift a lot of weights in anticipation of hoisting the Lombardi.

And do not think for one minute that this type of juju does not carry over to the players and the team as a whole. It's as close as you are going to get to a definition of "team culture". Players KNOW when players are not getting better due to coaching.

Only ones who can change all the above is the owners, and you never know if the move is for the good or for the bad. And I'm too far removed from any scuttlebut sources to know if they are contemplating any moves at all.

[Dames]

Issue we have is GB has the easiest schedule by far. This is slightly offset by the fact that of the 5 teams on this list, GB is the biggest poser. We need them to choke one and then we need to beat them. Looking at the schedule it doesn't look too great. Of all those games the only one that seems like it would have a shot is the Bears, but those are all dysfunctional teams, Redskins and Lions are extremely Dysfunctional. If they lose though, the door is open. No losses other than against us and then we are the 5 or 6 seed despite a 12-4 record. Obnoxious, thanks NFL schedulers and BS officiating crews.

For the other teams: SF could easily lose 2 of the last 4 games. NO Could lose 3 or eve 4 of those games, they barely beat a hapless Panthers squad at home. SEA is the biggest issue. I can see them running the table. However three of those games are divisional opponents and they'll play SEA tougher than other teams. @LAR could surprise. 49ers will likely be feeling the heat to stay on top. If that is the case, they'll show up to to play in week 17.

Biggest thing is GB choking out a game. We beat them and go into it 12-4 and we might be #2 seed or even #1 if the cards fall right. Sucks we lost that MNF game. Sucks more we lost the KC and CHI. The SEA game was the toughest on the schedule. We needed the game vs. the Bears or the game vs. KC. Those were the missed opportunities on the schedule.

I think a lot going to change in the coming weeks regarding seeds, but I think the Vikings are not very likely to catch the Packers. Their schedule is so soft, that even if we beat them, it may not matter. But, I do expect the Bears to play them tough. (I expect them to play us tough too.) There's just too much pride in those guys to lay down. That at least gives me some hope that we could finish on top still. It's asking a lot, and if we had somehow flipped any one of those 4 losses, we would be in control. But, we didn't, and GB got some huge help early in the year. The GB and Chicago losses are killers, and even though GB got some home cooking from the refs, we didn't play well enough to win either.

We could very easily be playing in GB in January even if we win out. It would suck, but of the the other teams that will likely make the playoffs, the only other team I'd rather face is Dallas. Playing in GB would be a huge challenge, but we can beat them. I'd feel a whole hell of lot better playing there then in Seattle.

My order of preference if we are the WC and have to travel:
1. Dallas
2. GB (I would pick NO over this normally, but I think GB is more flawed)
3. NO (we play well on turf indoors)
4. SF (Really good team, but less of a home field advantage)
5. Sea

Going 12-4 and getting the WC... damn, that's depressing.

[Dames]

Eh, it's not the end of the world to have a coach who says after a loss that it is not the end of the world.

As long as this FO and this coaching staff remain in place, my expectations (for coaching, if not the entire team) will remain planted firmly in the decent-to-pretty-good-probably-not-embarassing category. Those folks don't lift a lot of weights in anticipation of hoisting the Lombardi.
And do not think for one minute that this type of juju does not carry over to the players and the team as a whole. It's as close as you are going to get to a definition of "team culture". Players KNOW when players are not getting better due to coaching.

This isn't Detroit man. I absolutely believe they are all trying to win a trophy, and continue to try it every year. It's like you are implying that we are going-thru-the-motions in this organization. Maybe this staff and team won't get us there, but you can be damn sure that the organization thinks it can. A lot of things have to right for any team to win a SB. There are maybe a handful of coaches in NFL history that can be enough of an influence to get a team over the top consistently. Without looking, I'm guessing the majority of Superbowl winning coaches have 1. It's pretty rare to see a guy like Belichick, who is a notch above everyone else.

Only ones who can change all the above is the owners, and you never know if the move is for the good or for the bad. And I'm too far removed from any scuttlebut sources to know if they are contemplating any moves at all.

I have it on good authority that the FO loves Zim. I really don't think he's going anywhere soon. I may have some doubts about him, but it doesn't seem like they do. That was before the season started, but we're 8-4, so, I'm guessing that hasn't changed.
Talking about canning the coach with our record just seems absurd, BTW.