mondry wrote:I'll try to break down the argument (that I support anyway) and make it more clear. I'm not saying it will convert you or even change your opinion at all, it's just how I see it.
I agree that Cole in week 1 or whoever you want to put in there, might not have been as good as the starter in front of him from day 1 this season, there's simply no way to know so it can't favor either argument. The thing that I find really questionable though, is that at some point, I think we can agree, a couple of these guys seem to have surpassed the starters. Like you, I don't know WHEN it happened, but I think it's safe to say it DID happen, hopefully you're with me so far. The problem as I see it, is that the coaches weren't able to analyze / evaluate the positional battles (henderson, cole, etc) on their own to determine Cole should get the nod at MLB. They essentially "lucked" into it when Henderson forced them to play Cole with his legal trouble.
The problem I have with that take is the underlying assumption that it was somehow apparent in practices that Cole was better than Henderson. We don't know how Cole looked in practice, what his command of the defense was, how it may have evolved over the season, etc. We don't know if being waived briefly lit a fire under him and if he played much better after that or if he just surprised everyone by being the type of player who looks a lot different on game day than in practice (and we've all heard of players like that). There's so much we don't know. What we do know is that Cole didn't look as good in the preseason. He was a 7th round pick in 2012 who has developed into at least a decent starter and it seems to me the coaches probably deserve some credit for that, which leads to...
I do think they should get some kudos for developing those younger or more raw players, but for me the way it's all happened makes me think more negatively about the decision makers. If they had come out in week 12 and said "You know we've been seeing Cole do some good things and ultimately we've decided to give him the nod at MLB and move Henderson back to the weak side" I would have nothing but good things to say about it. As it is, I feel like every single move that's been made, hasn't been an actual thought based decision by Frazier, but some other force contributed to the change. (injury, ejection, legal troubles, etc)
I understand that but I think some of it (like getting Patterson more involved) has clearly been part of the plan all along.
Sometimes luck is involved these things. Tom Brady might not have seen the field and helped the Patriots win their first Super Bowl if Bledsoe hadn't been injured. Ditto for Kurt Warner, who took over when Trent Green was lost to injury. I doubt Belichick or Vermeil knew just how good those two QBs were going to become but they probably knew they had
something in them. I suspect the same is true for some of the young Vikings players. Cole wouldn't have stuck on the roster if Frazier didn't see something in him. Mark Craig of the Star Tribune said the same thing when asked about it.
Most of the time I feel the coaches are just content to go with what they got and let it play out, ride the wave if you will. But some times it's the wave of ineptitude and I guess what I'm looking for is if josh robinson is the most targeted / completed on CB in the league (at one point it got as bad as 93% completion rate) you gotta at least try sherels or someone else on the roster at nickel. If Ponder is not winning games and not able to run the offense like Cassel can than at some point you gotta put Cassel in.
I agree but if I recall correctly, they started working Sherels in at nickel before Robinson went down for the season and Robinson was improving before he was injured so sticking with him looked like it was starting to pay off. They gradually worked Bishop into the lineup and he had replaced Mitchell as the starter before he was lost to injury. Cassel is now starting even though Ponder is healthy. As I've said before when discussing this subject, it seems like the main argument is that Frazier isn't operating on the timetable fans want to see. There's a case to be made for that but there's also a case to be made for letting players work through problems, learn on the job, etc., which is something fans
also tend to demand. For every fan who has complained about Robinson being kept in the lineup this year, there's probably a fan who has complained that Mauti isn't in the lineup.
I'm just scared we might lose games because the coaches are just so willing to sit on their hands and be content. Obviously it's not going to matter much this year, but what about next year? In some ways it's beneficial to let a guy develop on the job but when it doesn't work out, we're talking about losses and if you wait 2 games too long you might go from 10-6 and a playoff spot to 8-8 and miss out.
That's a fair point but when you've been tasked with coaching a team that is rebuilding, doesn't that seem like the time to be patient and let players develop on the job? If not then, when? I don't think anyone was laboring under the delusion that this was going to be a Super Bowl team this season so if the Vikings were taking the longer view and developing toward a goal of being able to win it all in a year or two, a willingness to take their lumps this year makes some sense. I'm sure they were still trying to win games and make the playoffs but Spielman has made it crystal clear that this is a rebuilding team that wants to draft and develop it's own players. That means taking some of those lumps and showing some patience.
As for how much better these guys are, probably only a little bit.
Bingo! In some cases, even that is debatable.
As you can tell, I'm not a convert but I do appreciate you breaking down your views on this so well. I don't even think we're that far apart on it.
