Vikings Message Board.Com

I have not seen anything from Frazier to get me excited at all. He could leave tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me. Last year was a disgace but this season will finish him

For Craig and anyone else who's interested:

I stumbled across the quote below (from Judd Zulgad) while looking for other Vikes info. It's from last January.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Zulg ... lear011512

The Vikings recently promoted Rick Spielman to general manager, making him the franchise's football boss. Frazier, meanwhile, has two years left on a three-year contract.

There has been little information made available about Frazier's contract, but there is a chance that final season is an option year and it could be a team option.

Spielman has said ownership will have final say on Frazier's future, but if Spielman tells owner Zygi Wilf after next season that he wants to make a coaching change odds are good it will happen.

It sounds like nobody really knows if Frazier's third year is an option year or not. I'm not sure if the Vikings ever disclosed details about the contract.

Eli wrote:None of the above. Frazier will be back no matter what. The Vikings could go 1-15 and the Wilfs will stand behind him.

While I'm afraid you may be correct.....thats a pretty sad statement reguarding the ownership group. If in fact the Wilfs stick
with Frazier after another abmissmal season, then apparently mediocrity is the accepted norm and it will be a long time before the team and the fans see another playoff game.

radar55 wrote: While I'm afraid you may be correct.....thats a pretty sad statement reguarding the ownership group. If in fact the Wilfs stick
with Frazier after another abmissmal season, then apparently mediocrity is the accepted norm and it will be a long time before the team and the fans see another playoff game.

Well, at this point, it hasn't been an abysmal season because the season hasn't even started. Frazier hasn't done a good job or bad job in the 2012 regular season and if mediocrity (or worse) was considered acceptable, I don't think we would have seen the significant changes to the team we've seen over the past two years. There's no "pretty sad statement" about ownership above, just conjecture.

I know it's crazy but maybe this season will actually provide reasons to be encouraged about Frazier, Spielman, ownership and the Vikings as a whole. Maybe the team will actually improve. The idea isn't that crazy, is it?

Mothman wrote: Well, at this point, it hasn't been an abysmal season because the season hasn't even started. Frazier hasn't done a good job or bad job in the 2012 regular season and if mediocrity (or worse) was considered acceptable, I don't think we would have seen the significant changes to the team we've seen over the past two years. There's no "pretty sad statement" about ownership above, just conjecture.

I know it's crazy but maybe this season will actually provide reasons to be encouraged about Frazier, Spielman, ownership and the Vikings as a whole. Maybe the team will actually improve. The idea isn't that crazy, is it?

Its not crazy at all that the team can improve this year but............ my original reply was preficed with "IF" the team were to have another abysmal season and "IF" the ownership group were to then keep Frazier on board THEN it would in fact be IMO a bad statement from the ownership group because it would appear that they are willing to accept mediocrity. I know thats alot of IF's but right now this team is full of IF's and the head coach is certainly one of the biggest.

radar55 wrote:Its not crazy at all that the team can improve this year but............ my original reply was preficed with "IF" the team were to have another abysmal season and "IF" the ownership group were to then keep Frazier on board THEN it would in fact be IMO a bad statement from the ownership group because it would appear that they are willing to accept mediocrity. I know thats alot of IF's but right now this team is full of IF's and the head coach is certainly one of the biggest.

I saw the IFs and I understand that there's a lot of uncertainty around the team right now. There have just been a lot of posts this summer along the lines of "IF this happens it will be an indictment of Frazier" and "IF this happens it will say something negative about Spielman or the Wilfs or Ponder or...". I understand reacting and criticizing when something actually happens that deserves to be criticized but it's hard to see the point of preliminary or conjectural criticism.

Mothman wrote: I saw the IFs and I understand that there's a lot of uncertainty around the team right now. There have just been a lot posts this summer along the lines of "IF this happens it will be an indictment of Frazier" and "IF this happens it will say something negative about Spielman or the Wilfs or Ponder or...". I understand reacting and criticizing when something actually happens that deserves to be criticized but it's hard to see the point of preliminary or conjectural criticism.

How can this be an indictment of ownership if things do go bad? By everyone's admission, we simply don't know how things are going to turn out. Presumably, the ownership doesn't know either. If it does go bad this season, and the ownership doesn't make a change next season, that may be indicative of a bad statement from the ownership. How can their decision to keep Frazier this year, when no one knows the outcome, be considered a bad statement now?

Just Me wrote:How can this be an indictment of ownership if things do go bad? By everyone's admission, we simply don't know how things are going to turn out. Presumably, the ownership doesn't know either. If it does go bad this season, and the ownership doesn't make a change next season, that may be indicative of a bad statement from the ownership. How can their decision to keep Frazier this year, when no one knows the outcome, be considered a bad statement now?

I think he meant if the team has another abysmal season this year that keeping Frazier as HC in 2013 would be an indication that mediocrity (or worse) is acceptable.

Here's a question: what if this season goes well? What if the Vikings look well-coached, win 6+ games (a 3+game improvement), Ponder progresses nicely, etc.? Frazier will be entering the final year of his deal and it's usually not considered a good thing to have a"lame duck" coach. Should the Vikings extend Frazier's contract by a year or more?

If we're going to engage in conjecture, let's look at the up side as well as the down side.

Mothman wrote:
I think he meant if the team has another abysmal season this year that keeping Frazier as HC in 2013 would be an indication that mediocrity (or worse) is acceptable.

Fair enough, but if we are going to look at the number of wins as the "end-all" to the evaluation, it becomes almost "Childress-esque" in the criteria. In Childress's case, several us continually expressed doubt about his coaching ability despite his "continuing improvement" of 2 wins per year (apparently giving him a "pass on his first year" where the Vikings took a 3 game step backwards). It just seems to be a simplistic evaluation of a coaches performance, and in Childress's case wasn't an accurate assessment for him until three years later when everyone (most notably the Wilf's) had to admit Childress wasn't going to get the job done and his 2 game increase took a several game step backwards. The sad fact is that Childress's weaknesses were the same when the Vikings were 6-10 as they were when we were a 12-man penalty away from going to the Super Bowl in 2009. The personnel we had masked Childress's ineptness until the wheels came off that train and esposed Mr. Childress for what he was. In a nutshell, I think that we should look at how the team plays/improves regardless of the record. The Vikes might go 2-14 and raise their pass defense ability, and experience improved line play. In that particular case, I don't think keeping Frazier is a vote for "mediocrity" but a vote for "heading the ship in the right direction." At the moment improvement stagnates or goes backward, then I think you look at W/L to determine if you want to keep the coach.

Mothman wrote: Here's a question: what if this season goes well? What if the Vikings look well-coached, win 6+ games (a 3+game improvement), Ponder progresses nicely, etc.? Frazier will be entering the final year of his deal and it's usually not considered a good thing to have a"lame duck" coach. Should the Vikings extend Frazier's contract by a year or more?

If we're going to engage in conjecture, let's look at the up side as well as the down side.

That's a fair question, but my evaluation will remain consistent with the criteria I listed above. Frazier might get us to 8-8, but if it seems that is occuring in spite of him (rather than because of him), I don't think the improvement of record (alone) mandates an extension. As several have pointed out, we were competitve in several games last year, so its not that big of a stretch to think the Vikings could experience a significant increase in wins just by getting some "breaks" in a few of those close games this year. We have a QB who is still learning, but has had a proper off-season, and other personnel pick-ups that show promise. I expect improvement this year.

Here's a final thought to put Frazier's 2011 performance into another perspective. I have seen others refer to Frazier's year as the worst in Viking history. In terms of W/L he did tie Les Steckel. Just looking at point differential between Steckel's and Frazier's years are revealing: Frazier's squad had a -109 point differential. Steckel's was -208. The W/L says it was the same season. The point differential says otherwise. I know point differentials do not win Super Bowls, but the W/L record doesn't always tell the whole story either.

Just Me wrote:Fair enough, but if we are going to look at the number of wins as the "end-all" to the evaluation, it becomes almost "Childress-esque" in the criteria. In Childress's case, several us continually expressed doubt about his coaching ability despite his "continuing improvement" of 2 wins per year (apparently giving him a "pass on his first year" where the Vikings took a 3 game step backwards). It just seems to be a simplistic evaluation of a coaches performance, and in Childress's case wasn't an accurate assessment for him until three years later when everyone (most notably the Wilf's) had to admit Childress wasn't going to get the job done and his 2 game increase took a several game step backwards. The sad fact is that Childress's weaknesses were the same when the Vikings were 6-10 as they were when we were a 12-man penalty away from going to the Super Bowl in 2009. The personnel we had masked Childress's ineptness until the wheels came off that train and esposed Mr. Childress for what he was. In a nutshell, I think that we should look at how the team plays/improves regardless of the record. The Vikes might go 2-14 and raise their pass defense ability, and experience improved line play. In that particular case, I don't think keeping Frazier is a vote for "mediocrity" but a vote for "heading the ship in the right direction." At the moment improvement stagnates or goes backward, then I think you look at W/L to determine if you want to keep the coach.

I absolutely agree that wins and losses alone are a poor way to measure a coach because there are too many other variables to consider. At some point, the cumulative number of wins and losses definitely has to be considered but personnel, resources, injuries and other factors all contribute to a team's record. Some examples to consider:

The Bucs won 12 games and the Super Bowl in 2002 and followed that with a 7-9 season. They fell to 5-11 the following season before bouncing back with an 11-5 record in 2005. Then they plunged to 4 wins and Gruden finished his tenure with two 9-7 seasons. Did he forget how to coach during the down seasons or did other factors contribute to the team's record?

George Siefert coached 8 seasons in San Francisco and won 2 Super Bowls, never finishing a season with fewer than 10 wins, yet when he went to Carolina he posted records of 8-8, 7-9 and 1-15 before being replaced by John Fox in 2002. If atht doesn't indicate how much factors other than the head coach himself contribute to wins and losses I don't know what does.

Two years after Fox took over, the Panthers won the NFC and lost a very competitive game in the Super Bowl. A year later they were 7-9 and in Fox's last season (2010) they were 2-14. Fox didn't forget how to coach either but again, his ups and downs show just how much talent and other factors can influence wins and losses. Once a coach and team are able to build a strong roster with a good QB at it's core (as the Pats have and as Indy did under Dungy), they can sustain success for a pretty long time IF they can keep replenishing their roster. However, building a roster up from a low point takes strong drafting, time and luck... all on top of good coaching.

That's a fair question, but my evaluation will remain consistent with the criteria I listed above. Frazier might get us to 8-8, but if it seems that is occuring in spite of him (rather than because of him), I don't think the improvement of record (alone) mandates an extension. As several have pointed out, we were competitve in several games last year, so its not that big of a stretch to think the Vikings could experience a significant increase in wins just by getting some "breaks" in a few of those close games this year. We have a QB who is still learning, but has had a proper off-season, and other personnel pick-ups that show promise. I expect improvement this year.

I'm looking at it the same way but the question still stands, if we see that improvement and if, as I said, the Vikings appear well-coached, should they give Frazier an extension rather than have him coach a lame duck season in 2013? It could be a tough call for ownership.

Here's a final thought to put Frazier's 2011 performance into another perspective. I have seen others refer to Frazier's year as the worst in Viking history. In terms of W/L he did tie Les Steckel. Just looking at point differential between Steckel's and Frazier's years are revealing: Frazier's squad had a -109 point differential. Steckel's was -208. The W/L says it was the same season. The point differential says otherwise. I know point differentials do not win Super Bowls, but the W/L record doesn't always tell the whole story either.

It certainly does and having watched both the 2011 Vikings and the 1984 Vikings, I can say with confidence that there's no comparison between the two. The 2011 Vikes were definitely not the disaster the Steckel-coached Vikes were.

Mothman wrote: I'm looking at it the same way but the question still stands, if we see that improvement and if, as I said, the Vikings appear well-coached, should they give Frazier an extension rather than have him coach a lame duck season in 2013? It could be a tough call for ownership.

I think it would be a tougher call, but I'm not sure I understand why (I don't disagree with the assessment, I just don't understand why that it is a given) it is bad to have a "lame duck" as Head Coach. I get it if the guy is having a "lights out" season and you are worried he may move elsewhere if you don't express the confidence in him, but I'm not sure that if Frazier turns in an "average" year (albeit improved - whatever that is) that it is wise to extend his contract at that point. I just have a doubt that teams will be lining up for his services and I think there might be some "extra motivation" for the coach in his final contract year. I would hate to be "married" to a coach a year earlier than I had to be if he turns out to be a "dud".

Just Me wrote:I think it would be a tougher call, but I'm not sure I understand why (I don't disagree with the assessment, I just don't understand why that it is a given) it is bad to have a "lame duck" as Head Coach. I get it if the guy is having a "lights out" season and you are worried he may move elsewhere if you don't express the confidence in him, but I'm not sure that if Frazier turns in an "average" year (albeit improved - whatever that is) that it is wise to extend his contract at that point. I just have a doubt that teams will be lining up for his services and I think there might be some "extra motivation" for the coach in his final contract year. I would hate to be "married" to a coach a year earlier than I had to be if he turns out to be a "dud".

I think the concern with lame duck coaches tends to be about a lack of accountability, that a coach's authority will be compromised because players know the coach might not be back the following season. In other words, there might be extra motivation for the coach but there could be a lack of motivation from some players. NFL owners used to avoid lame duck years but recently, they've shown more willingness to stick with lame duck coaches, probably because firing them can cost big bucks. That said, it doesn't always work out well. The Panthers were 2-14 in Fox's lame duck (and last) season. The Titans were 6-10 with fisher as a lame duck and the Jags were something like 2-6 when Del Rio was canned midway through a lame duck season last year.

Anyway, you make a good point: the lame duck situation cuts both ways. You don't want to extend a coach that may turn out to be a dud but if that coach has a great season, he could become a hot commodity or be much more expensive to retain.

Hopefully, the Vikes will be so good this year that it will be a no-brainer to extend Frazier's contract. I know that's unlikely but it would be nice (and encouraging) to see that situation in January.

Jim

Frazier has to show some creativity. He has to show he can make some solid game-time decisions that contribute to wins. Just keeping the players on board isn't enough. He seemed to be able to do that during his short tenure as the coach after Childress was fired, and last year the team played hard (too hard, IMHO, but that's another thread) right until the end. So its obvious the players like him, and I think most fans like him as a person as well.

But this season that's just not going to be enough. The deck is stacked against him. His team has almost no depth and bigtime questions at several starting positions. He has no real starting WR's beyond Harvin, who he refuses to put on the field for more than half the team's offensive snaps. His best RB is coming off a major injury, and his starting QB is a 2nd-year reach who he really has no option but to start due to the lack of any solid alternative. His team plays in the toughest division in football with a near unanimous Superbowl favorite that finished 15-1 the prior year and won the Superbowl the year before that, and two teams that look very competitive with that 15-1 team. This is Murderer's Row. This is the Land of No Mercy. This is the Valley of the Shadow of Death. And this is the hand that Frazier has been dealt.

That's one of the reasons I was disappointed to see Frazier sit his starters against the Texans, especially after watching how poorly the starters performed against the Chargers. Like it or not, the Vikings starters are probably equivalent to many team's 2nd stringers right now. There are individuals who are not, but collectively, I think that's a fair assessment, and by missing an opportunity to get those guys back on the field to see if they can bounce back after a bad performance, I think Frazier set the team back a bit tonight. As for evaluating the depth, depth is a kind word to describe some of the players still on the roster (Larry Dean, I'm talking about you and your lame body tackle attempts). If the league allowed a team to go into the season with less than a full roster of players I think the Vikings would be capable of actually under-manning their roster at this point. There are probably fewer than 45 NFL-caliber players on this team.

VikingLord wrote:Frazier has to show some creativity. He has to show he can make some solid game-time decisions that contribute to wins. Just keeping the players on board isn't enough. He seemed to be able to do that during his short tenure as the coach after Childress was fired, and last year the team played hard (too hard, IMHO, but that's another thread) right until the end. So its obvious the players like him, and I think most fans like him as a person as well.

But this season that's just not going to be enough. The deck is stacked against him. His team has almost no depth and bigtime questions at several starting positions. He has no real starting WR's beyond Harvin, who he refuses to put on the field for more than half the team's offensive snaps.

To be fair, they addressed that during the second half of last season:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/preview12/team/_/name/min

Before the Vikings' Week 9 bye, Percy Harvin had played in 51.2 percent of the team's snaps. After the bye, Harvin played in 66.2 percent of the snaps.

... and Harvin was playing hurt in some of those games. If healthy, maybe he would have had even more snaps. If I'm not mistaken, Harvin was targeted more than any other WR in the NFL during the second half of last season. I'm not sure where to double check that info but I heard something along those lines on ESPN Radio recently.

I don't see how Frazier sitting his starters against Houston set the team back. I wasn't able to watch the game but I assume the Vikes starters wouldn't have been playing against starters, correct? Maybe playing the starters would have been beneficial but if Frazier had played them and a key player had been injured he'd be getting blasted this morning. I think he made the right call.

win. go 8-8 at least. the offense looks anemic, the defense looks shaky.