Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote:

Maybe it's just me but that doesn't seem like throwing Musgrave under the bus. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's probably at fault but Frazier said "an oversight on our part". He didn't just come out and blame Musgrave.

It doesn't seem like a big deal either way. When a player isn't seeing the field often enough, it's pretty obvious the coaches are responsible. They make those decisions.

An oversight?

Don't know about that.

Mothman wrote: Maybe it's just me but that doesn't seem like throwing Musgrave under the bus. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's probably at fault but Frazier said "an oversight on our part". He didn't just come out and blame Musgrave.

It doesn't seem like a big deal either way. When a player isn't seeing the field often enough, it's pretty obvious the coaches are responsible. They make those decisions.

None of us really know, but you have to wonder how much input mild-mannered Leslie has in the offensive play calling or the personnel on the field during a game. I could see him saying something like this after a failed play:

"A twenty yard pass to John Carlson on third and one wouldn't have been my first choice, Bill, but I can see where you're coming from."

Mothman wrote: Maybe it's just me but that doesn't seem like throwing Musgrave under the bus. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's probably at fault but Frazier said "an oversight on our part". He didn't just come out and blame Musgrave.

It doesn't seem like a big deal either way. When a player isn't seeing the field often enough, it's pretty obvious the coaches are responsible. They make those decisions.

Yeah it sounds like Levitan is just trying to sell discord amongst the staff. Frazier is watching the game, it's a major oversight if he's missing it too, not just Musgrave. Obviously the fans have seen it and so have the reporters, hence the questions. Not only that, but he was asked the same question LAST GAME so surely you would think he would be more attentive about it in this game. If anything, he's throwing himself under the bus by saying they had an "oversight" two weeks in a row.

Who calls the offensive plays? Who determines what personnel is out there? Musgrave. So who do you think he's throwing under the bus? He said they had to get him more involved, and they didn't. And now he's coming with even stronger language about getting Patterson involved. But you don't think he's talking about Musgrave? Come on....

Frazier is doomed. Stuck with an incompetent OC, incompetent QB, and a lack of talent on defense. Good luck....

Demi wrote:Who calls the offensive plays? Who determines what personnel is out there? Musgrave. So who do you think he's throwing under the bus? He said they had to get him more involved, and they didn't. And now he's coming with even stronger language about getting Patterson involved. But you don't think he's talking about Musgrave? Come on....

Frazier is doomed. Stuck with an incompetent OC, incompetent QB, and a lack of talent on defense. Good luck....

Frazier is the head coach and the buck stops with him. We know for a fact that Patterson was an issue after Detroit. So through all the meetings, practices, and probably 10 or so scripted plays that teams run, Frazier was totally clueless? What exactly is his job on gameday, to twiddle his thumbs? How about at halftime, maybe a good time to pull your OC aside and say, "hey remember how we wanted to get Patterson more involved? My sheet says Webb is getting more snaps right now, lets change that up." Gameplans are fluid and evolve as the game evolves. A head coach is there to make sure everyone is in line and doing what is asked of them, if things are not going the way that it was discussed, do something about it. It's a fundamental leadership skill.

So he shouldn't throw him under the bus, but undermining him on game day is suppose to be accepted? Considering how he came out this week, I doubt during practice/film room/leading up to the game he didn't make it clear he wanted Patterson more involved. Now he's suppose to tell the guy how to run the offense as well? Even going as far as dictating personnel to him at half time? Maybe hold his hand on the sideline? This is ridiculous! I understand where you're coming from, but once a boss tells an employee what he expects of them, what more can he do? Do their job for them?

We desperately need a new offensive coordinator...and maybe someone to hire them that has a better idea what to look for...

Demi wrote: We desperately need a new offensive coordinator...and maybe someone to hire them that has a better idea what to look for...

Ha! That's funny....cause I think they wound up hiring Childress.

The Breeze wrote: Ha! That's funny....cause I think they wound up hiring Childress.

Which is what you get when you're sleazy almost-criminal new jersey business scum are hiring NFL head coaches.

And our GM still doesn't have the power to hire/fire the head coach.

That's the biggest issue....

Get it right. Hire an NFL person and let them do the job...completely...and without interference...

Demi wrote: Which is what you get when you're sleazy almost-criminal new jersey business scum are hiring NFL head coaches.

And our GM still doesn't have the power to hire/fire the head coach.

That's the biggest issue....

Get it right. Hire an NFL person and let them do the job...completely...and without interference...

Now I'm confused. I saw you post that the Browns were looking to hire Musgrave when we did. Then the Browns hired Childress....which is what my other comment was about. Now I don't see the comment you made about Musgrave and the Bowns. Maybe I'm on the wrong damn thread

S197 wrote:How about at halftime, maybe a good time to pull your OC aside and say, "hey remember how we wanted to get Patterson more involved? My sheet says Webb is getting more snaps right now, lets change that up."

Hey whoa. Or how bout just getting either of them the ball? I'm not sure if Webb is actually getting more snaps but he hasn't had any touches. Lets change that too. He's probably on Muskie's 3 year WR development plan. Year 1: no touches.

Webbfann wrote:He's probably on Muskie's 3 year WR development plan. Year 1: no touches.

Fits right in with the Vikings pace of doing things. The QB plan is, year 3: pocket presence, year 4: foot work.

Reignman wrote:Fits right in with the Vikings pace of doing things. The QB plan is, year 3: pocket presence, year 4: foot work.

I laughed! painfully...

Was Patterson more involved today? If you count 1 painfully ugly end around and 2 catches more involved then idk. I guess they thought they'd fool the Browns ... hey we've been talking about getting Patterson more involved for 2 weeks straight, so lets fool em and not get him involved again. Yeah they won't see it coming. Oh those tricky Vikes.