Inside the dysfunction of the Zimmer era

[StumpHunter]

I think it is relevant because one time period is what ownership should be aiming for with their new hires while the other is what they should be desperately trying to avoid.

The seasons leading up to 2017 showed what could happen when a HC and GM were on the same page, while 2018 on was what it looks like when a GM and HC get too full of themselves and stubbornly think they know best and stop doing what lead to their previous success.

That’s one way to look at it. I think the seasons leading up to 2017 showed the limitations of that coach/GM combo and both 2017 and what came after showed the peak of what they could achieve and the inevitable consequences of ignoring their limitations and keeping them around.

How does being a game away from the SB and having the 2nd most wins in franchise history with a backup RB and QB show the peak of what could be achieved?

[Cliff]

That’s one way to look at it. I think the seasons leading up to 2017 showed the limitations of that coach/GM combo and both 2017 and what came after showed the peak of what they could achieve and the inevitable consequences of ignoring their limitations and keeping them around.

How does being a game away from the SB and having the 2nd most wins in franchise history with a backup RB and QB show the peak of what could be achieved?

Because from that point on the team got worse and worse. That is literally the peak of what they could accomplish during 7 years. More than most coaches get to prove what their peak is.

The next season they kept the 2017 nearly intact with the biggest change being "improvement" at quarterback and did worse.

[Mothman]

Because from that point on the team got worse and worse. That is literally the peak of what they could accomplish during 7 years. More than most coaches get to prove what their peak is.

Exactly!

[StumpHunter]

How does being a game away from the SB and having the 2nd most wins in franchise history with a backup RB and QB show the peak of what could be achieved?

Because from that point on the team got worse and worse. That is literally the peak of what they could accomplish during 7 years. More than most coaches get to prove what their peak is.

The next season they kept the 2017 nearly intact with the biggest change being "improvement" at quarterback and did worse.

Because they stopped doing what was so successful leading up to that 2017 season, which is my whole point. Defillipo is not hired, and Cousins is not signed if the GM and HC are on the same page. In 2019, you don't see the first 3 picks go to offense with a huge turnover coming on the D the following year if the HC and GM are on the same page. Both of the guys at the top felt their sh*t didn't stink and when your sh*t don't stink it is really hard to listen to anyone else try to help you do your job.

Success lead to their ultimate failure.

[Cliff]

Because they stopped doing what was so successful leading up to that 2017 season, which is my whole point. Defillipo is not hired, and Cousins is not signed if the GM and HC are on the same page. In 2019, you don't see the first 3 picks go to offense with a huge turnover coming on the D the following year if the HC and GM are on the same page. Both of the guys at the top felt their sh*t didn't stink and when your sh*t don't stink it is really hard to listen to anyone else try to help you do your job.

Success lead to their ultimate failure.

I get your point. But you're simply giving reasons why that was their peak, not that it wasn't. This isn't hypothetical. In 7 years, with the full support of their ownership, that's the best they could do. The reasons why make for interesting conversation but don't change reality.

[VikingLord]

Because they stopped doing what was so successful leading up to that 2017 season, which is my whole point. Defillipo is not hired, and Cousins is not signed if the GM and HC are on the same page. In 2019, you don't see the first 3 picks go to offense with a huge turnover coming on the D the following year if the HC and GM are on the same page. Both of the guys at the top felt their sh*t didn't stink and when your sh*t don't stink it is really hard to listen to anyone else try to help you do your job.

Success lead to their ultimate failure.

I know the stat you threw out there about the team having the 3rd most wins in the NFL between the 2014 and 2017 seasons, but I think you're overstating the trajectory they were on a bit.

In 2014, the first season Zimmer was the head coach, they finished 7-9 and 3rd in the NFC North.
In 2015, they finished 11-5 and first in the NFC North. Should be the start of that upward trajectory based on what you're saying, but then...
In 2016, they finished 8-8 and, again, 3rd in the NFC North
In 2017, they finished 13-3 and 1st in the NFC North. But, in an important footnote to that result, they did so with a 3rd string journeyman at QB who clearly caught lightning in a bottle that year and on the back of some unusual offensive aggressiveness that was far from typical for a Mike Zimmer-led team.

I'm not seeing the trend there. Maybe on defense the team was trending up over that time period based on https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesotavikin ... voa_under/, but if that was such a big factor in terms of the team's final records and ultimate success, how to explain the up-and-down results from year to year? Based on DVOA, the defense didn't drop off a cliff after Cousins was signed. In fact, the two seasons after Cousins arrived the defense was better (based on DVOA) than it was during either the 2015 or 2016 seasons.

I just don't see the trend. I don't see evidence that either Spielman or Zimmer or the combo of the two had found some formula that was producing consistent results or any kind of trend, upward or downward.

If I see anything, it is that Spielman caught "Mike Lynn Syndrome" after the 2017 season and decided the Vikings were one player away from greatness based on the results of the prior year. A better QB, coupled with the defense and overall talent on the team, would be enough to push them over the top. And they promptly finished 8-7-1, 2nd in the North and out of the playoffs.

Tell me where the trend is because I honestly don't see it.

[VikingLord]

Anyway, the best way to avoid that type of situation in the future is to find a coach/GM combo with a collaborative attitude, a shared vision and a willingness to communicate with each other. They both need to understand their roles and play "complementary football" just like an effective offense and defense.

It's obviously easier said than done but I think a strong, shared vision for the team is critical.

I agree, but it should be more along the lines of the Max Winter-Bud Grant relationship where Grant and Winter agree on a core philosophy and the kind of players they need to build a team representative of that philosophy, but where Winters finds the players and Grant coaches them to greatness.

The litmus test of the effectiveness of a GM-head coach relationship is what happens if there are disagreements. Does the GM impose his views on the head coach, or is it the other way around? Does each possess a veto over the moves made by the other? If not, and one makes moves the other disagrees with, what happens? Does it depend on the on-field results, does one simply override the other, or do the two just stop talking and do their own thing even if those things diametrically oppose one another?

These are valid things to answer before moving forward. If they are not addressed clearly early on, then at best the org is hoping for a functional relationship and interaction to develop even if both the GM and head coach go into it clearly liking each other and agreeing on a philosophy and approach. No relationship is tested when things are easy and going well or early on, at least not usually. They are tested when the team falls short of expectations.

Anyway, not an easy thing to do, but if there is a time where it can be done, this is the time. The Wilfs have to do this right and set the team up for success. I think their best chance of doing that is making it clear who between the GM and head coach has what responsibilities and to whom they are accountable. It's a bit more rigid, but at least everyone knows what to expect and can operate within their area of responsibility without interference.

[StumpHunter]

Tell me where the trend is because I honestly don't see it.

If you plotted those wins numbers per year there would literally be a trend line you could see indicating the franchise was on an upward trajectory. Considering the last two years the Vikings lost their starting QB for the year, that is pretty impressive.

Then the HC and GM both felt they knew better and that trend line took a nose dive.

If I were better at making charts I would post it here, but just flip the first letter from your favorite team and that is what it would look like.

[40for60]

I agree, but it should be more along the lines of the Max Winter-Bud Grant relationship where Grant and Winter agree on a core philosophy and the kind of players they need to build a team representative of that philosophy, but where Winters finds the players and Grant coaches them to greatness.

Patrick Reusse had an article in the Strib yesterday agreeing with this. A quote from the article that points out what you are saying:

I want to hear about a sign on the GM's office wall that reads, "I'll get them, you coach them."

https://www.startribune.com/enough-of-c ... 600138567/

[VikingLord]

Tell me where the trend is because I honestly don't see it.

If you plotted those wins numbers per year there would literally be a trend line you could see indicating the franchise was on an upward trajectory. Considering the last two years the Vikings lost their starting QB for the year, that is pretty impressive.

Then the HC and GM both felt they knew better and that trend line took a nose dive.

If I were better at making charts I would post it here, but just flip the first letter from your favorite team and that is what it would look like.

I think if you plotted that "trend" it would look more like a 'W' than an upside-down 'V'.