Rock Bottom

[The Breeze]

It can definitely get a lot worse.

Your comments about what types of brains/personalities gravitate to each theory of responsibility are interesting. I honestly don't know. I fall in-between the two. I definitely believe success starts at the top and poor coaching can have a huge impact on games but I also think players have to be held responsible for their performance. Logically, I just don't see how it can any other way. They're the ones playing the games.

There's a reason big college programs tend to have their way with small school programs more often than not. They usually field bigger, more talented teams and that makes a huge difference. Sometimes a smaller program with good coaching and enough talent can pull off an upset and that underlines the importance of great strategy and great coaching but more often that not, talent wins out. It's true in the NFL too. Teams with good QBs and good play at the line of scrimmage tend to beat teams without those attributes most of the time. Of course, coaching has something to do with establishing that good play...

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I have a hard time believing it's ever just coaching or just the players. It's almost always both. Good leadership is essential but so are good players. That's why John Fox can be the same man who coached an 11-5 Panthers team that made it to the Super Bowl, a 2-14 Panthers team that got him fired, an 8-8 Broncos team with Tim Tebow playing QB and a Broncos team that's 18-3 in it's last 21 games and currently undefeated (with you-know-who at QB). Same coach, wildly different results.

I'm a tweener too. I thinks it's a bit simplistic and symptomatic of a desire for instant gratification to view it otherwise, and I understand that desire.

Watching the game yesterday was like watching a bus go over a cliff....just an empty feeling. I don't see the flow of leadership making it's way to the playing field. We have what looks to be a team of nice guys participating in a sport where nice guys finish last...if at all .

[DanAS]

Well Dan, a few things.

First off, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the coaching staff. I would really love to hear a top-notch psychiatric analysis of what makes up those of us that think "the main problem is the PLAYERS, the players must play, Frazier did not drop that pass, etc." versus the camp who finds almost full fault with the coaching staff. Would love to know what types of brains/personalities gravitate to each theory.

Anyways, I am absolutely in the camp that it all starts at the top and works down. And that organizational systemic failures are addressed by addressing leadership. Full-on 100% believe that. If that means current blame goes to the owners for hiring this staff, so be it. Call for change is in order. If that means Spielman is on the hook for hiring this staff, so be it. But for GAMEDAY FOOTBALL OPERATIONS, the onus squarely resides with Frazier on down.

So I would be thrilled to see this staff out the door. At this point I really don't care about the defacto GM or ownership. This group of players with an entirely different staff would, IMO, produce entirely different results all else being equal.

And as a point of note, your thread title of "Rock Bottom" implies this team has a hard surface below, through which it is impossible to get lower. Oh I bet to differ my friend, I beg to differ. This team can (and I believe will) sink even further.

On the issue of whether things could get worse, Tolstoy would probably agree with you -- as is reflected in his "All happy families are the same; the unhappy ones are different in their own way." There clearly are nearly infinite ways for a football team to totally stink, and an analyzer of stats can surely point to new and different ways for a really bad team to get quantitatively worse. But my point is that we have reached the point where this team has become unwatchably bad unless (a) you are rooting for the other team, (b) you value being a die hard for the sake of being a die hard (guilty as charged), or (c) you have a truly warped sense of humor bordering on the Kubrickian (must confess that at times, that can apply to me as well). Once you reach this level, you qualify in my book for the term "Rock Bottom," and you become less of a competitive football team than an object of pathos. Of course, since pathos is the prime ingredient of great art, who knows was fascinations this year's Vikings have to offer. I just hope that the words "pathos" and "Adrian Peterson" do not intersect again this year.

Speaking of fascinations, I, like Mothman, am interested in your point about psychological grounds for being a "blame the players" guy or a "blame the management" guy. In my case, I have reached the point in my life that I am definitely a "blame the management" guy, rather than a true tweener. Obviously players matter. Obviously, the best management can, with the help of bad luck, inherit awful players -- particularly, in this sport, when the injury bug hits. (And don't underestimate the injury to Stanford's nose tackle in what would otherwise be a strong defense -- but I digress.) For me, I've seen lots of offices in the more than 29 years since I graduated from law school, and I truly believe that the management sets the tone, acquires the personnel, and determines the quality. With some exceptions, great management makes for great offices, and lousy management makes for lousy offices. I suspect that is true in most walks of life, and I see no reason why it wouldn't apply to a football team.

By the way, do you remember Greenway's rookie year when I took my family to Mankato and reported on my trip to the Newsgroup? I saw a guy at Training Camp that year -- another guy who was new to the Vikings -- and was super impressed with him. I knew he would make a name for himself. His name is Mike Tomlin, and he quickly won himself a Super Bowl. Whether you're talking about management or players, when you're really good, observers can usually detect it. To take an even clearer example, from the moment Jim Harbaugh came to the Farm and gave his first press conference, I knew that my school's dreadful football team -- which was 1-11 not so long ago -- would be resurgent. That sure didn't take long, now did it? That's what happens when you bring in excellent folks to run an organization. Look at the Lakers under Gerry West -- they were masterful for decades.

Right now, with the Vikes, I'm looking for the next Jim Harbaugh or the next Jerry West. Frankly, I'll settle for a GM with half of West's talent ... and maybe a coach who is a bit saner than Harbaugh, but not nearly so sane as Frazier. Great guy; not the greatest coach.

[Texas Vike]

On the issue of whether things could get worse, Tolstoy would probably agree with you -- as is reflected in his "All happy families are the same; the unhappy ones are different in their own way." There clearly are nearly infinite ways for a football team to totally stink, and an analyzer of stats can surely point to new and different ways for a really bad team to get quantitatively worse. But my point is that we have reached the point where this team has become unwatchably bad unless (a) you are rooting for the other team, (b) you value being a die hard for the sake of being a die hard (guilty as charged), or (c) you have a truly warped sense of humor bordering on the Kubrickian (must confess that at times, that can apply to me as well). Once you reach this level, you qualify in my book for the term "Rock Bottom," and you become less of a competitive football team than an object of pathos. Of course, since pathos is the prime ingredient of great art, who knows was fascinations this year's Vikings have to offer. I just hope that the words "pathos" and "Adrian Peterson" do not intersect again this year.

Speaking of fascinations, I, like Mothman, am interested in your point about psychological grounds for being a "blame the players" guy or a "blame the management" guy. In my case, I have reached the point in my life that I am definitely a "blame the management" guy, rather than a true tweener. Obviously players matter. Obviously, the best management can, with the help of bad luck, inherit awful players -- particularly, in this sport, when the injury bug hits. (And don't underestimate the injury to Stanford's nose tackle in what would otherwise be a strong defense -- but I digress.) For me, I've seen lots of offices in the more than 29 years since I graduated from law school, and I truly believe that the management sets the tone, acquires the personnel, and determines the quality. With some exceptions, great management makes for great offices, and lousy management makes for lousy offices. I suspect that is true in most walks of life, and I see no reason why it wouldn't apply to a football team.

By the way, do you remember Greenway's rookie year when I took my family to Mankato and reported on my trip to the Newsgroup? I saw a guy at Training Camp that year -- another guy who was new to the Vikings -- and was super impressed with him. I knew he would make a name for himself. His name is Mike Tomlin, and he quickly won himself a Super Bowl. Whether you're talking about management or players, when you're really good, observers can usually detect it. To take an even clearer example, from the moment Jim Harbaugh came to the Farm and gave his first press conference, I knew that my school's dreadful football team -- which was 1-11 not so long ago -- would be resurgent. That sure didn't take long, now did it? That's what happens when you bring in excellent folks to run an organization. Look at the Lakers under Gerry West -- they were masterful for decades.

Right now, with the Vikes, I'm looking for the next Jim Harbaugh or the next Jerry West. Frankly, I'll settle for a GM with half of West's talent ... and maybe a coach who is a bit saner than Harbaugh, but not nearly so sane as Frazier. Great guy; not the greatest coach.

Fantastic post, Dan. I found myself nodding along to many of your points. Apropos of the "unwatchably bad" condition in which the team now finds itself... I didn't even bother with the second half this Sunday. I worked in the yard and enjoyed transplanting some trees and plants. The lack of effort that I saw on the Panther's second TD showed me everything I needed to see: three or four of our guys couldn't be bothered to tackle a non-elite running back. Why would I invest my time, energy and emotions in them?

Of course, I'll be watching the MNF game... but I'll have my finger on the remote's power button.

[DanAS]

Apropos of the "unwatchably bad" condition in which the team now finds itself... I didn't even bother with the second half this Sunday. I worked in the yard and enjoyed transplanting some trees and plants. The lack of effort that I saw on the Panther's second TD showed me everything I needed to see: three or four of our guys couldn't be bothered to tackle a non-elite running back. Why would I invest my time, energy and emotions in them?

Of course, I'll be watching the MNF game... but I'll have my finger on the remote's power button.

The challenge for this team the rest of the year is how do they make this product watchable to the true, but not masochistic, fans? In other words, given that we arguably have hit "Rock Bottom" (in the qualitative sense of that word), how can we create the impression that we are truly "on the way up" from our present one-and-four-and-sinking state?

Some would advocate getting a new coach. And obviously, if the product becomes absurdly bad enough to the point of laughing-stock status, we'll have no choice. But I do believe that the best case scenario is if we can put this thing back together with duct tape, play out the string the rest of the year, not stink so badly that the guys are learning horrid habits, and then change coaches during the off-season when the studs become available. (Think of the Harbaugh example. Would he have been available during the middle of the NFL season? Of course not.)

This requires that guys play hard and have fun. It doesn't require us to win many games the rest of the way. Our talent level -- especially if we sustain further injuries -- may prevent us from doing so anyway. But that's OK, as long as we're still fighting. What I saw yesterday suggests that there is definite quit potential here, and that does worry me.

[psjordan]

Watching the game yesterday was like watching a bus go over a cliff....just an empty feeling.

Holy cow, you are one stoic dude. Bus over cliff = just about every feeling but "empty" for me

I definitely believe success starts at the top and poor coaching can have a huge impact on games but I also think players have to be held responsible for their performance

Well of course. We (at least I) was talking about where you put the BULK of the responsibility. I believe Tom Brady would not be Tom Brady without the staff he's had. I believe AD is woefully underutilized by our staff in terms of putting in consistent games for us (as was Barry Sanders for all the doofs he played for). Not that with another staff AD would be "better" in terms of more yards, but IMO he'd be a LOT better in terms of helping his teams win games.

This is not to say players can't screw up in games, they ALL do. This is about say a Christian Ponder and his development as a consistently good player capable of helping his team win games. This is not about that player say throwing 8 more interceptions than Peyton Manning. And yes, not that Ponder will ever be great shakes to me, but I firmly believe he would have been WAY better off under say Andy Reid than our clowns.

And I don't say that in the spur of the moment of an unfolding crappy season. Our staff has had years to help develop players beyond where they currently are performing.

I don’t believe there is a human on the planet who possesses the same gameday countenance as Leslie Frazier that could consistently lead today’s NFL players in winning more than losing.

Frazier’s won-loss record as a HC is the one consistent factor during his tenure. Players have come and gone, gotten hurt, gotten arrested, etc. The GM situation changed a few times. Frazier’s teams are 17-26. And we STILL do not have any kind of resolution at the QB position – the most important spot in football, by far.

So I place the large bulk of the mess at the feet of the coaching staff.

For me, I've seen lots of offices in the more than 29 years since I graduated from law school, and I truly believe that the management sets the tone, acquires the personnel, and determines the quality. With some exceptions, great management makes for great offices, and lousy management makes for lousy offices. I suspect that is true in most walks of life, and I see no reason why it wouldn't apply to a football team.

Absolutely and completely agree.

By the way, do you remember Greenway's rookie year when I took my family to Mankato and reported on my trip to the Newsgroup?

I do not, but take heart as I do not recall what I had for lunch yesterday either.

Tomlin exudes what a good HC is made of, Frazier does not. Imagine yourself a 23-year old NFL player and watching Frazier's post-loss conferences vs. Tomlin's post-Vikings-loss conference. Which would you run through a brick wall for?

[DanAS]

I don’t believe there is a human on the planet who possesses the same gameday countenance as Leslie Frazier that could consistently lead today’s NFL players in winning more than losing.

Precisely. Frazier is the opposite of Jim Harbaugh.

I'd much rather have Frazier as my rabbi, though I'd much. MUCH rather have Harbaugh as my football coach.

Actually ... if we did ask Frazier to be a rabbi, maybe we might finally get some emotion out of him. ("You mean I can talk about Jesus as a man but not as a person in the Trinity? Seriously, Ziggy? What if I try it my way for just one sermon and see if that works? You're telling me it's non-negotiable? Holy ^&%&%.")

[DanAS]

We haven't resolved the QB position, most important position, true. But the same can be said for about half of the NFL teams, the Chiefs are making a go out of it with a proven coach and QB.

They have a pretty darned good "game manager" at QB -- he's mobile and he doesn't throw stupid passes. Is he a Hall of Famer? No, but then again, they just had 10 SACKS IN ONE GAME. As for their coach, he led a team to a number of playoff wins, so he's not exactly a total novice. He must be doing something right out there in Hallmark country.

[Mothman]

Holy cow, you are one stoic dude. Bus over cliff = just about every feeling but "empty" for me

LOL!

Well of course. We (at least I) was talking about where you put the BULK of the responsibility. I believe Tom Brady would not be Tom Brady without the staff he's had. I believe AD is woefully underutilized by our staff in terms of putting in consistent games for us (as was Barry Sanders for all the doofs he played for). Not that with another staff AD would be "better" in terms of more yards, but IMO he'd be a LOT better in terms of helping his teams win games.

This is not to say players can't screw up in games, they ALL do. This is about say a Christian Ponder and his development as a consistently good player capable of helping his team win games. This is not about that player say throwing 8 more interceptions than Peyton Manning. And yes, not that Ponder will ever be great shakes to me, but I firmly believe he would have been WAY better off under say Andy Reid than our clowns.

And I don't say that in the spur of the moment of an unfolding crappy season. Our staff has had years to help develop players beyond where they currently are performing.

I don’t believe there is a human on the planet who possesses the same gameday countenance as Leslie Frazier that could consistently lead today’s NFL players in winning more than losing.

Frazier’s won-loss record as a HC is the one consistent factor during his tenure. Players have come and gone, gotten hurt, gotten arrested, etc. The GM situation changed a few times. Frazier’s teams are 17-26. And we STILL do not have any kind of resolution at the QB position – the most important spot in football, by far.

So I place the large bulk of the mess at the feet of the coaching staff.

I'd say it's a shared responsibility between players and management with a little more weight leaning toward the latter since they're in charge of assembling the former. Beyond that, assessing who is most to blame when we're so far removed from the situation becomes a guessing game and since we don't get to do the hiring and firing, I'm not sure it matters much... or maybe it does. I don't know. I'm growing numb to this scenario the more it plays out. I can only take so many blowout losses and calls for everyone involved to be fired, benched, released, drawn and quartered, etc. Now I'm at the point where I care a lot less about who is at fault. I just want to see the problems fixed.

I'm not sure what you meant about the GM situation changing a few times. Spielman was Director of Player Personnel and then was promoted to GM. That's the only change during this brief Frazier era and the biggest impact it had was to put more responsibility for the roster in Spielman's hands.

[psjordan]

I'd say it's a shared responsibility between players and management with a little more weight leaning toward the latter since they're in charge of assembling the former. Beyond that, assessing who is most to blame when we're so far removed from the situation becomes a guessing game and since we don't get to do the hiring and firing, I'm not sure it matters much... or maybe it does.

I just think the scorecard directly tied to Frazier and his staff - a 17-26 record - is the scorecard you go by for coaching staffs. 43 games is a reasonable sample size IMO.

I can only take so many blowout losses and calls for everyone involved to be fired, benched, released, drawn and quartered

Ha! Where can I buy tickets for THAT!?!

I'm not sure what you meant about the GM situation changing a few times. Spielman was Director of Player Personnel and then was promoted to GM. That's the only change during this brief Frazier era and the biggest impact it had was to put more responsibility for the roster in Spielman's hands.

I meant just that - Frazier has been HC through different iterations of a "GM office". Just pointing out that Frazier and his staff are about the only constant over his tenure.

[mansquatch]

The point is to say that Spielman most likely wasn't 100% responsible for Frasier's hiring. Also, we know that prior to Spielman being made GM he did not have 100% say on personnel decisions. How much less than 100% is not known nor is the influence level of Frasier known. Only conclusion there is that it wasn't all Rick prior to 2012 Draft.

Could be semantics though, if he had say 90% say, then it really isn't that big of a deal. Can't really know without being a fly on the wall...

[Mothman]

I just think the scorecard directly tied to Frazier and his staff - a 17-26 record - is the scorecard you go by for coaching staffs. 43 games is a reasonable sample size IMO.

I think 3 seasons is a good sample size when the first two feature such mixed results. I'd throw out the interim games. That was Frazier taking over a disaster and coaching with someone else's staff. His record doesn't look any better without those games, I just wouldn't count them.

Ha! Where can I buy tickets for THAT!?!

Stick around, they'll be available on StubHub before the end of this season!

I meant just that - Frazier has been HC through different iterations of a "GM office". Just pointing out that Frazier and his staff are about the only constant over his tenure.

I can't agree with that. Spielman's been there the whole time too. His role has changed somewhat but if anything, that change shifted more responsibility for the product on the field to him, not less.

[psjordan]

I can't agree with that. Spielman's been there the whole time too. His role has changed somewhat but if anything, that change shifted more responsibility for the product on the field to him, not less.

Let me rephrase then:
Just pointing out that Frazier and his staff are about the only KNOWN constant over his tenure.

Hard to speculate what Spielman was or was not allowed to do along the way. We know for a FACT that Frazier and his staff coached the team.

[Mothman]

Hard to speculate what Spielman was or was not allowed to do along the way. We know for a FACT that Frazier and his staff coached the team.

I get what you're saying: Frazier's held the exact same position over that time. Spielman's position changed but let's face it, the two were tied together from the start of the post-Childress era. Spielman's had a major role in personnel decisions and THE major role in those decisions for the last two offseasons. Whether Frazier was his choice as coach or not, they've both been constants and inarguably the two biggest decision-makers involved in assembling the current roster.

[The Breeze]

Holy cow, you are one stoic dude. Bus over cliff = just about every feeling but "empty" for me

I just meant that once it goes over the cliff there's nothing anyone can do. Hopeless and empty inside....that's how I felt.

[jackal]

I started watching the game and couldn't even get through the first half..

I taped it off Sunday ticket.. My sons description was, " The vikings got raped!!"

he didn't seem to be far off ...