Browns @ Vikings post game

[VikingLord]

Oh, and Zimmer isn't even good on the defensive side anymore - so why keep him?

Except the defense has played great the past two games.

On what do you base that?

They shut Seattle down for a half. The other half they gave up yards and points by the metric ton.

The Browns did what they wanted all game yesterday. They didn't score a lot of points, but that was more their own fault than anything the Vikings defense did to stop them.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Why does it not surprise me that you responded because I pointed the finger at Mediocre Mike......

There was zero fluidity with the offense. When did I say Mattison looked good? I'm saying we were playing musical chairs with RBs because one was out there when he shouldnt have been. Which looked like it through off the whole game plan. If you actually read my post you'd understand that.

But you know who else wasnt any good? Mediocre Mike. He shouldnt have a job. Whether you like that or not. This guy runs the team and you want to point the finger at everybody else. Face the facts

He did his job on the defensive side, holding the 3rd best scoring offense through 3 weeks to 14 points.

He is the HC of the team though, not just the DC, and so he shoulders blame for the offensive failings as well. So does the GM who put a flawed QB behind a flawed Oline. So does the flawed QB and flawed Oline.

As for running both Mattison and Cook, the Vikings pulled Cook for most of that game and only put him back in once it was clear Mattison was not having the same impact Cook could have. It worked for a couple of plays, but it wasn't enough.

The biggest issue I saw from a coaching standpoint were the protections called on blitzes. Bradbury did a terrible job getting the RB in the right spot to pick up the blitz and that is on the coaching staff not prepping him to identify where blitzers would be coming from. The rest was just poor execution, which is also on coaches to a degree, just not something I would call "poor managemet", whatever the heck that means.

Poor game management. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. How Zim manages a game. The lack of urgency, the stupid penalties, the constant running on 2nd down and wasting of downs, the time wasted at the end of the game, his lack of a plan B when Cook went out, etc.

The same thing he's had a problem with for how long now? The same thing that has affected games already this year?

We got the ball back at the end of the game with 3:51 left in the game down by 7 with all 3 timeouts remaining. What did we do?

-Cook RUN for 15 (eh maybe to catch them off guard and get a drive started)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

.....now we're facing 3rd down

-Deep pass to JJ for 31 (lucky to even complete this on a 3rd down this late)

....okay back to first down, lets get something going here so lets.....

-Mattison RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

Before you know it, we were inside the 2 minute warning and the only thing that gained us much of anything in a situation like that was the deep ball to JJ for 31 yards. We ran FOUR fricken times when we're starting on our own 12!! We are lucky to even get the ball back again. We pis#ed away almost 2 1/2 minutes dic#ing around. ZERO urgency! That is the definition of POOR GAME MANAGEMENT! That is on Mike Zimmer. Period.

....clear enough for you?

[StumpHunter]

He did his job on the defensive side, holding the 3rd best scoring offense through 3 weeks to 14 points.

He is the HC of the team though, not just the DC, and so he shoulders blame for the offensive failings as well. So does the GM who put a flawed QB behind a flawed Oline. So does the flawed QB and flawed Oline.

As for running both Mattison and Cook, the Vikings pulled Cook for most of that game and only put him back in once it was clear Mattison was not having the same impact Cook could have. It worked for a couple of plays, but it wasn't enough.

The biggest issue I saw from a coaching standpoint were the protections called on blitzes. Bradbury did a terrible job getting the RB in the right spot to pick up the blitz and that is on the coaching staff not prepping him to identify where blitzers would be coming from. The rest was just poor execution, which is also on coaches to a degree, just not something I would call "poor managemet", whatever the heck that means.

Poor game management. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. How Zim manages a game. The lack of urgency, the stupid penalties, the constant running on 2nd down and wasting of downs, the time wasted at the end of the game, his lack of a plan B when Cook went out, etc.

The same thing he's had a problem with for how long now? The same thing that has affected games already this year?

We got the ball back at the end of the game with 3:51 left in the game down by 7 with all 3 timeouts remaining. What did we do?

-Cook RUN for 15 (eh maybe to catch them off guard and get a drive started)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

.....now we're facing 3rd down

-Deep pass to JJ for 31 (lucky to even complete this on a 3rd down this late)

....okay back to first down, lets get something going here so lets.....

-Mattison RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

Before you know it, we were inside the 2 minute warning and the only thing that gained us much of anything in a situation like that was the deep ball to JJ for 31 yards. We ran FOUR fricken times when we're starting on our own 12!! We are lucky to even get the ball back again. We pis#ed away almost 2 1/2 minutes dic#ing around. ZERO urgency! That is the definition of POOR GAME MANAGEMENT! That is on Mike Zimmer. Period.

....clear enough for you?

The Vikings needed a touchdown and had plenty of time to get one. The issue on that drive was not the clock, it was poor execution of the offense, as evidenced by the fact we didn't come close to running out of time on that drive and in fact got the ball back once again with a minute left after we held the Browns to a 3 and out...

[psjordan]

I just wanted to get the "longest post" award for this thread, so ...

I realize it’s an age-old debate over who carries the most “influence” over a team’s performance, coaches or players. And therefore who deserves the most credit/blame when things go right or wrong. Here’s my take, not saying I’m right.

I’ve coached (lacrosse) at several levels up to college. If you are not familiar, overall similar staff responsibilities to football, i.e., HC, OC, DC, etc. “Special teams” would be goalies and faceoff guys, they’re mostly crazy. Anyways I spent most of my time as a HS HC and had great teams, good teams and mediocre teams (fortunately never any horrid teams). I coached players that went on to win big awards at the college level, including one who won the lacrosse equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. And over all my years of coaching, I came to the following conclusion:

The coaching staff/management are responsible for 75% or more of the “issues” a team exhibits over time.

My staff, just like Zim’s and pretty much every other HS/college/pro staff, ALWAYS knew what the problems were. We were emphatic about going over game tape, not only in hindsight but in scouting. If you know your sport and you have the luxury of watching practice and game tape in the finest detail you can stand, then you KNOW what the problems are. The only real restraint is the number of hours in the day. And if you can hire someone to break down and parse the film first so you don’t have to? Wow, luxury of luxuries for a coaching staff.

I’ll repeat that for posterity – ALL THE IN-GAME PROBLEMS THIS TEAM HAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ZIMMER AND THE COACHING STAFF. That is probably the only 100% safe statement I’ll make here.

Now, there are some “issues leading to losing” that are very difficult to overcome. Lack of team speed when compared to the opposition – that’s a killer in just about any sport. And overall talent of course. But a good/great coaching staff mitigates all problems outside of the most difficult. Schemes can help disguise lack of team speed but cannot overcome it. Enough discipline to not have too many D players on an extra point try so your nose tackle calls a timeout we don’t have? Enough strength and technique in the OL so they don’t get dumped on their keyster every other play? Well, a good staff makes sure those things do not happen.

Let’s take one “issue” pointed out in this thread (also pointed out myriad of times before of course), that under pressure, Cousins gets skitterish and “cannot see” open receivers more than 15-20 yards away. If you don’t think this is a “new” problem, then there is no way our coaching staff has not identified it as an ongoing issue. If you are the HC making $5M a year, what’s the solution? You have contractual obligations to the QB – but do you just continue to let it happen, 30-40-50 games into your tenure with Cousins? Doesn’t that sound a bit preposterous?

The sign of a GOOD coaching staff is that the problem sets, if they are noticeable, are NOT the same over time, with old or new personnel. Issues with a specific player (i.e., a WR with brick hands) stick out as an anomaly. Or an OL who gets literally BLOWN backwards on half of all snaps – that stuff should only be happening to ONE player every 3-4 years on a well-coached (including strength coach) team. And only during practice. Or maybe never.

The sign of a POOR coaching staff is having the same in-game problems over and over. And it does not matter if you have the same personnel making the same mistakes (coaches are failing to help identify and correct problems), or if the mistakes are with different/new personnel (our kickers, etc.), which means our systems to teach the program to newcomers are failing.

That’s a long-winded way to say IMO our coaching staff needs to go. Say all you want about who’s doing what out on the field this year – if you can plug in different years and describe the exact same problems, trust me, it’s the coaching staff.

I’m a statistics/calculus guy from years back. I don’t really know what the currently accepted definition of “statistically impossible” might be, but I can say that it’s “almost statistically impossible” for us to have pretty much whiffed on every single offensive lineman we’ve either drafted or brought to the team in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening – having O’Neill be the one “standout shining star” in the bunch, are enormously low (picking O’Neill was a quick ad-hoc that I did not bother to research, correct me if I’m wrong). That probably tells you that our coaching and teaching have been really, really bad in that area for a long time. And once we “teach them to be mediocre or worse”, they pretty much stay that way.

As HC, it is YOUR JOB to identify this type of failure early on and get to management/owners and tell them we need to identify/interview/hire the absolute best OL and strength coaches from the pro or college ranks that money will buy. Zim should be saying “I don’t care if you pay them more than me!”. Maybe those efforts have taken place over the years and were not fruitful, but somehow, I doubt it. We’ve pretty much been the definition of nepotism and the buddy system when it comes to coaching hires over the last 10 years.

So, what’s the upshot for this team, this season? Whew, who knows. Zim and staff are not complete idiots, but - stop me if you’ve already seen this movie - performances on both sides of the ball have been spotty and inconsistent. Overall roster has good amounts of talent, certainly a handful of very good players capable of making big plays on both sides of the ball.

All I can say is this – with our current mix of coaches on the hot seat, coaches trying to prove themselves, young players trying to develop and veterans hoping to prove their next contract – well holy cow that is going to make for a few exciting wins and more than a few excruciating losses the rest of the way.

Zimmer isn't the solution and I don't want to defend him because I think it is time to move on, but there seems to be this narrative that if we just got rid of the HC, a team that isn't close to competing with the best teams in the NFL talentwise would suddenly be winning SBs.

Oh yes, very true. Exhibit A is the Lions. And not only “get rid of the HC”, but also the notion that all we need is to replace Cousins (Stafford from Exhibit A). It takes an entire staff that knows what the heck they are doing, but it all starts with the HC. Even if you have an all-world-talent QB like Stafford.

Don't worry though, Zimmer will be fired after we miss the playoffs, Rick, the guy who has employed that HC all these years instead of moving on will keep his job…

Last time I looked it up, both Zim and Rick report directly to Mark Wilf. While certainly plausible that Rick stays on and leads the search for a new HC, as GM’s “lead the search” for new HC’s all the time, that does not mean any future HC will report to the GM.

If the Wilfs think we need to move on from Zim, I could see them keeping Rick just so there is some continuity and not a wholesale firing of close to 60 front office people at once. I just can’t see the Wilfs pushing the button on that much turmoil in a single offseason.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Except the defense has played great the past two games.

On what do you base that?

They shut Seattle down for a half. The other half they gave up yards and points by the metric ton.

The Browns did what they wanted all game yesterday. They didn't score a lot of points, but that was more their own fault than anything the Vikings defense did to stop them.

Exactly. They stopped Seattle for 1 half. They were brutal against Cincy, brutal against Arizona. Yesterday, going into that game, we knew Cleveland was good at one thing and one thing only, running the ball. And we were gouged on the ground. Baker Mayfield is not a good QB. How we didnt sell out to stop the run and force Baker to beat us is beyond me. If we actually handled the run game, Cleveland would've been lucky to score a single point because Baker was just that bad.

[4mnvikings82]

I just wanted to get the "longest post" award for this thread, so ...

I realize it’s an age-old debate over who carries the most “influence” over a team’s performance, coaches or players. And therefore who deserves the most credit/blame when things go right or wrong. Here’s my take, not saying I’m right.

I’ve coached (lacrosse) at several levels up to college. If you are not familiar, overall similar staff responsibilities to football, i.e., HC, OC, DC, etc. “Special teams” would be goalies and faceoff guys, they’re mostly crazy. Anyways I spent most of my time as a HS HC and had great teams, good teams and mediocre teams (fortunately never any horrid teams). I coached players that went on to win big awards at the college level, including one who won the lacrosse equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. And over all my years of coaching, I came to the following conclusion:

The coaching staff/management are responsible for 75% or more of the “issues” a team exhibits over time.

My staff, just like Zim’s and pretty much every other HS/college/pro staff, ALWAYS knew what the problems were. We were emphatic about going over game tape, not only in hindsight but in scouting. If you know your sport and you have the luxury of watching practice and game tape in the finest detail you can stand, then you KNOW what the problems are. The only real restraint is the number of hours in the day. And if you can hire someone to break down and parse the film first so you don’t have to? Wow, luxury of luxuries for a coaching staff.

I’ll repeat that for posterity – ALL THE IN-GAME PROBLEMS THIS TEAM HAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ZIMMER AND THE COACHING STAFF. That is probably the only 100% safe statement I’ll make here.

Now, there are some “issues leading to losing” that are very difficult to overcome. Lack of team speed when compared to the opposition – that’s a killer in just about any sport. And overall talent of course. But a good/great coaching staff mitigates all problems outside of the most difficult. Schemes can help disguise lack of team speed but cannot overcome it. Enough discipline to not have too many D players on an extra point try so your nose tackle calls a timeout we don’t have? Enough strength and technique in the OL so they don’t get dumped on their keyster every other play? Well, a good staff makes sure those things do not happen.

Let’s take one “issue” pointed out in this thread (also pointed out myriad of times before of course), that under pressure, Cousins gets skitterish and “cannot see” open receivers more than 15-20 yards away. If you don’t think this is a “new” problem, then there is no way our coaching staff has not identified it as an ongoing issue. If you are the HC making $5M a year, what’s the solution? You have contractual obligations to the QB – but do you just continue to let it happen, 30-40-50 games into your tenure with Cousins? Doesn’t that sound a bit preposterous?

The sign of a GOOD coaching staff is that the problem sets, if they are noticeable, are NOT the same over time, with old or new personnel. Issues with a specific player (i.e., a WR with brick hands) stick out as an anomaly. Or an OL who gets literally BLOWN backwards on half of all snaps – that stuff should only be happening to ONE player every 3-4 years on a well-coached (including strength coach) team. And only during practice. Or maybe never.

The sign of a POOR coaching staff is having the same in-game problems over and over. And it does not matter if you have the same personnel making the same mistakes (coaches are failing to help identify and correct problems), or if the mistakes are with different/new personnel (our kickers, etc.), which means our systems to teach the program to newcomers are failing.

That’s a long-winded way to say IMO our coaching staff needs to go. Say all you want about who’s doing what out on the field this year – if you can plug in different years and describe the exact same problems, trust me, it’s the coaching staff.

I’m a statistics/calculus guy from years back. I don’t really know what the currently accepted definition of “statistically impossible” might be, but I can say that it’s “almost statistically impossible” for us to have pretty much whiffed on every single offensive lineman we’ve either drafted or brought to the team in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening – having O’Neill be the one “standout shining star” in the bunch, are enormously low (picking O’Neill was a quick ad-hoc that I did not bother to research, correct me if I’m wrong). That probably tells you that our coaching and teaching have been really, really bad in that area for a long time. And once we “teach them to be mediocre or worse”, they pretty much stay that way.

As HC, it is YOUR JOB to identify this type of failure early on and get to management/owners and tell them we need to identify/interview/hire the absolute best OL and strength coaches from the pro or college ranks that money will buy. Zim should be saying “I don’t care if you pay them more than me!”. Maybe those efforts have taken place over the years and were not fruitful, but somehow, I doubt it. We’ve pretty much been the definition of nepotism and the buddy system when it comes to coaching hires over the last 10 years.

So, what’s the upshot for this team, this season? Whew, who knows. Zim and staff are not complete idiots, but - stop me if you’ve already seen this movie - performances on both sides of the ball have been spotty and inconsistent. Overall roster has good amounts of talent, certainly a handful of very good players capable of making big plays on both sides of the ball.

All I can say is this – with our current mix of coaches on the hot seat, coaches trying to prove themselves, young players trying to develop and veterans hoping to prove their next contract – well holy cow that is going to make for a few exciting wins and more than a few excruciating losses the rest of the way.

Zimmer isn't the solution and I don't want to defend him because I think it is time to move on, but there seems to be this narrative that if we just got rid of the HC, a team that isn't close to competing with the best teams in the NFL talentwise would suddenly be winning SBs.

Oh yes, very true. Exhibit A is the Lions. And not only “get rid of the HC”, but also the notion that all we need is to replace Cousins (Stafford from Exhibit A). It takes an entire staff that knows what the heck they are doing, but it all starts with the HC. Even if you have an all-world-talent QB like Stafford.

Don't worry though, Zimmer will be fired after we miss the playoffs, Rick, the guy who has employed that HC all these years instead of moving on will keep his job…

Last time I looked it up, both Zim and Rick report directly to Mark Wilf. While certainly plausible that Rick stays on and leads the search for a new HC, as GM’s “lead the search” for new HC’s all the time, that does not mean any future HC will report to the GM.

If the Wilfs think we need to move on from Zim, I could see them keeping Rick just so there is some continuity and not a wholesale firing of close to 60 front office people at once. I just can’t see the Wilfs pushing the button on that much turmoil in a single offseason.

Great post. It all comes down to accountability and the head coach is accountable for the production on the field

[Pondering Her Percy]

Poor game management. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. How Zim manages a game. The lack of urgency, the stupid penalties, the constant running on 2nd down and wasting of downs, the time wasted at the end of the game, his lack of a plan B when Cook went out, etc.

The same thing he's had a problem with for how long now? The same thing that has affected games already this year?

We got the ball back at the end of the game with 3:51 left in the game down by 7 with all 3 timeouts remaining. What did we do?

-Cook RUN for 15 (eh maybe to catch them off guard and get a drive started)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)
-Cook RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

.....now we're facing 3rd down

-Deep pass to JJ for 31 (lucky to even complete this on a 3rd down this late)

....okay back to first down, lets get something going here so lets.....

-Mattison RUN for 2 (waste of a down and time)

Before you know it, we were inside the 2 minute warning and the only thing that gained us much of anything in a situation like that was the deep ball to JJ for 31 yards. We ran FOUR fricken times when we're starting on our own 12!! We are lucky to even get the ball back again. We pis#ed away almost 2 1/2 minutes dic#ing around. ZERO urgency! That is the definition of POOR GAME MANAGEMENT! That is on Mike Zimmer. Period.

....clear enough for you?

The Vikings needed a touchdown and had plenty of time to get one. The issue on that drive was not the clock, it was poor execution of the offense, as evidenced by the fact we didn't come close to running out of time on that drive and in fact got the ball back once again with a minute left after we held the Browns to a 3 and out...

You're missing the point. Those are WASTES of downs in that situation. Running 4 out of 5 times when we need a TD and are buried on our own 12. There's zero sense of urgency. No less our running game was crap all day anyways. Coaches like Andy Reid and Sean McVay dont run the ball 4 out of 5 plays to begin with let alone on a possible final drive of the game.

You mentioned earlier.....

but there seems to be this narrative that if we just got rid of the HC, a team that isn't close to competing with the best teams in the NFL talentwise would suddenly be winning SBs."

Isnt close to competing? According to who? The cardinals are arguably the best team in the NFC right now. We had them beat on the road if it wasnt for a missed FG/poor decision. They had Cincy, who's 3-1 right now, on the ropes and beat if it wasnt for a fumble in OT. They beat Seattle who is always one of the better teams in the NFL. And they just lost to one of the best AFC teams by a touchdown. They have literally competed with every team, every week so far. Our losing margin has to be the smallest in the NFL. We've lost 3 games by a TD or less and those 3 losses were a combined 11 points.

So yeah, they can compete talent wise no problem. But I can tell you they dont have a coach at this point that can get them over the hump and winning. Could be because he still coaches his team like it's 1991, who knows.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I just wanted to get the "longest post" award for this thread, so ...

I realize it’s an age-old debate over who carries the most “influence” over a team’s performance, coaches or players. And therefore who deserves the most credit/blame when things go right or wrong. Here’s my take, not saying I’m right.

I’ve coached (lacrosse) at several levels up to college. If you are not familiar, overall similar staff responsibilities to football, i.e., HC, OC, DC, etc. “Special teams” would be goalies and faceoff guys, they’re mostly crazy. Anyways I spent most of my time as a HS HC and had great teams, good teams and mediocre teams (fortunately never any horrid teams). I coached players that went on to win big awards at the college level, including one who won the lacrosse equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. And over all my years of coaching, I came to the following conclusion:

The coaching staff/management are responsible for 75% or more of the “issues” a team exhibits over time.

My staff, just like Zim’s and pretty much every other HS/college/pro staff, ALWAYS knew what the problems were. We were emphatic about going over game tape, not only in hindsight but in scouting. If you know your sport and you have the luxury of watching practice and game tape in the finest detail you can stand, then you KNOW what the problems are. The only real restraint is the number of hours in the day. And if you can hire someone to break down and parse the film first so you don’t have to? Wow, luxury of luxuries for a coaching staff.

I’ll repeat that for posterity – ALL THE IN-GAME PROBLEMS THIS TEAM HAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ZIMMER AND THE COACHING STAFF. That is probably the only 100% safe statement I’ll make here.

Now, there are some “issues leading to losing” that are very difficult to overcome. Lack of team speed when compared to the opposition – that’s a killer in just about any sport. And overall talent of course. But a good/great coaching staff mitigates all problems outside of the most difficult. Schemes can help disguise lack of team speed but cannot overcome it. Enough discipline to not have too many D players on an extra point try so your nose tackle calls a timeout we don’t have? Enough strength and technique in the OL so they don’t get dumped on their keyster every other play? Well, a good staff makes sure those things do not happen.

Let’s take one “issue” pointed out in this thread (also pointed out myriad of times before of course), that under pressure, Cousins gets skitterish and “cannot see” open receivers more than 15-20 yards away. If you don’t think this is a “new” problem, then there is no way our coaching staff has not identified it as an ongoing issue. If you are the HC making $5M a year, what’s the solution? You have contractual obligations to the QB – but do you just continue to let it happen, 30-40-50 games into your tenure with Cousins? Doesn’t that sound a bit preposterous?

The sign of a GOOD coaching staff is that the problem sets, if they are noticeable, are NOT the same over time, with old or new personnel. Issues with a specific player (i.e., a WR with brick hands) stick out as an anomaly. Or an OL who gets literally BLOWN backwards on half of all snaps – that stuff should only be happening to ONE player every 3-4 years on a well-coached (including strength coach) team. And only during practice. Or maybe never.

The sign of a POOR coaching staff is having the same in-game problems over and over. And it does not matter if you have the same personnel making the same mistakes (coaches are failing to help identify and correct problems), or if the mistakes are with different/new personnel (our kickers, etc.), which means our systems to teach the program to newcomers are failing.

That’s a long-winded way to say IMO our coaching staff needs to go. Say all you want about who’s doing what out on the field this year – if you can plug in different years and describe the exact same problems, trust me, it’s the coaching staff.

I’m a statistics/calculus guy from years back. I don’t really know what the currently accepted definition of “statistically impossible” might be, but I can say that it’s “almost statistically impossible” for us to have pretty much whiffed on every single offensive lineman we’ve either drafted or brought to the team in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening – having O’Neill be the one “standout shining star” in the bunch, are enormously low (picking O’Neill was a quick ad-hoc that I did not bother to research, correct me if I’m wrong). That probably tells you that our coaching and teaching have been really, really bad in that area for a long time. And once we “teach them to be mediocre or worse”, they pretty much stay that way.

As HC, it is YOUR JOB to identify this type of failure early on and get to management/owners and tell them we need to identify/interview/hire the absolute best OL and strength coaches from the pro or college ranks that money will buy. Zim should be saying “I don’t care if you pay them more than me!”. Maybe those efforts have taken place over the years and were not fruitful, but somehow, I doubt it. We’ve pretty much been the definition of nepotism and the buddy system when it comes to coaching hires over the last 10 years.

So, what’s the upshot for this team, this season? Whew, who knows. Zim and staff are not complete idiots, but - stop me if you’ve already seen this movie - performances on both sides of the ball have been spotty and inconsistent. Overall roster has good amounts of talent, certainly a handful of very good players capable of making big plays on both sides of the ball.

All I can say is this – with our current mix of coaches on the hot seat, coaches trying to prove themselves, young players trying to develop and veterans hoping to prove their next contract – well holy cow that is going to make for a few exciting wins and more than a few excruciating losses the rest of the way.


Oh yes, very true. Exhibit A is the Lions. And not only “get rid of the HC”, but also the notion that all we need is to replace Cousins (Stafford from Exhibit A). It takes an entire staff that knows what the heck they are doing, but it all starts with the HC. Even if you have an all-world-talent QB like Stafford.


Last time I looked it up, both Zim and Rick report directly to Mark Wilf. While certainly plausible that Rick stays on and leads the search for a new HC, as GM’s “lead the search” for new HC’s all the time, that does not mean any future HC will report to the GM.

If the Wilfs think we need to move on from Zim, I could see them keeping Rick just so there is some continuity and not a wholesale firing of close to 60 front office people at once. I just can’t see the Wilfs pushing the button on that much turmoil in a single offseason.

Great post. It all comes down to accountability and the head coach is accountable for the production on the field

Facts

[StumpHunter]

I just wanted to get the "longest post" award for this thread, so ...

I realize it’s an age-old debate over who carries the most “influence” over a team’s performance, coaches or players. And therefore who deserves the most credit/blame when things go right or wrong. Here’s my take, not saying I’m right.

I’ve coached (lacrosse) at several levels up to college. If you are not familiar, overall similar staff responsibilities to football, i.e., HC, OC, DC, etc. “Special teams” would be goalies and faceoff guys, they’re mostly crazy. Anyways I spent most of my time as a HS HC and had great teams, good teams and mediocre teams (fortunately never any horrid teams). I coached players that went on to win big awards at the college level, including one who won the lacrosse equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. And over all my years of coaching, I came to the following conclusion:

The coaching staff/management are responsible for 75% or more of the “issues” a team exhibits over time.

My staff, just like Zim’s and pretty much every other HS/college/pro staff, ALWAYS knew what the problems were. We were emphatic about going over game tape, not only in hindsight but in scouting. If you know your sport and you have the luxury of watching practice and game tape in the finest detail you can stand, then you KNOW what the problems are. The only real restraint is the number of hours in the day. And if you can hire someone to break down and parse the film first so you don’t have to? Wow, luxury of luxuries for a coaching staff.

I’ll repeat that for posterity – ALL THE IN-GAME PROBLEMS THIS TEAM HAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ZIMMER AND THE COACHING STAFF. That is probably the only 100% safe statement I’ll make here.

Now, there are some “issues leading to losing” that are very difficult to overcome. Lack of team speed when compared to the opposition – that’s a killer in just about any sport. And overall talent of course. But a good/great coaching staff mitigates all problems outside of the most difficult. Schemes can help disguise lack of team speed but cannot overcome it. Enough discipline to not have too many D players on an extra point try so your nose tackle calls a timeout we don’t have? Enough strength and technique in the OL so they don’t get dumped on their keyster every other play? Well, a good staff makes sure those things do not happen.

Let’s take one “issue” pointed out in this thread (also pointed out myriad of times before of course), that under pressure, Cousins gets skitterish and “cannot see” open receivers more than 15-20 yards away. If you don’t think this is a “new” problem, then there is no way our coaching staff has not identified it as an ongoing issue. If you are the HC making $5M a year, what’s the solution? You have contractual obligations to the QB – but do you just continue to let it happen, 30-40-50 games into your tenure with Cousins? Doesn’t that sound a bit preposterous?

The sign of a GOOD coaching staff is that the problem sets, if they are noticeable, are NOT the same over time, with old or new personnel. Issues with a specific player (i.e., a WR with brick hands) stick out as an anomaly. Or an OL who gets literally BLOWN backwards on half of all snaps – that stuff should only be happening to ONE player every 3-4 years on a well-coached (including strength coach) team. And only during practice. Or maybe never.

The sign of a POOR coaching staff is having the same in-game problems over and over. And it does not matter if you have the same personnel making the same mistakes (coaches are failing to help identify and correct problems), or if the mistakes are with different/new personnel (our kickers, etc.), which means our systems to teach the program to newcomers are failing.

That’s a long-winded way to say IMO our coaching staff needs to go. Say all you want about who’s doing what out on the field this year – if you can plug in different years and describe the exact same problems, trust me, it’s the coaching staff.

I’m a statistics/calculus guy from years back. I don’t really know what the currently accepted definition of “statistically impossible” might be, but I can say that it’s “almost statistically impossible” for us to have pretty much whiffed on every single offensive lineman we’ve either drafted or brought to the team in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening – having O’Neill be the one “standout shining star” in the bunch, are enormously low (picking O’Neill was a quick ad-hoc that I did not bother to research, correct me if I’m wrong). That probably tells you that our coaching and teaching have been really, really bad in that area for a long time. And once we “teach them to be mediocre or worse”, they pretty much stay that way.

As HC, it is YOUR JOB to identify this type of failure early on and get to management/owners and tell them we need to identify/interview/hire the absolute best OL and strength coaches from the pro or college ranks that money will buy. Zim should be saying “I don’t care if you pay them more than me!”. Maybe those efforts have taken place over the years and were not fruitful, but somehow, I doubt it. We’ve pretty much been the definition of nepotism and the buddy system when it comes to coaching hires over the last 10 years.

So, what’s the upshot for this team, this season? Whew, who knows. Zim and staff are not complete idiots, but - stop me if you’ve already seen this movie - performances on both sides of the ball have been spotty and inconsistent. Overall roster has good amounts of talent, certainly a handful of very good players capable of making big plays on both sides of the ball.

All I can say is this – with our current mix of coaches on the hot seat, coaches trying to prove themselves, young players trying to develop and veterans hoping to prove their next contract – well holy cow that is going to make for a few exciting wins and more than a few excruciating losses the rest of the way.


Oh yes, very true. Exhibit A is the Lions. And not only “get rid of the HC”, but also the notion that all we need is to replace Cousins (Stafford from Exhibit A). It takes an entire staff that knows what the heck they are doing, but it all starts with the HC. Even if you have an all-world-talent QB like Stafford.


Last time I looked it up, both Zim and Rick report directly to Mark Wilf. While certainly plausible that Rick stays on and leads the search for a new HC, as GM’s “lead the search” for new HC’s all the time, that does not mean any future HC will report to the GM.

If the Wilfs think we need to move on from Zim, I could see them keeping Rick just so there is some continuity and not a wholesale firing of close to 60 front office people at once. I just can’t see the Wilfs pushing the button on that much turmoil in a single offseason.

Great post. It all comes down to accountability and the head coach is accountable for the production on the field

Correct, and the GM is accountable for keeping that head coach around as well as putting a good enough team on the field.

Accountability starts at the top, and since we can't fire the Wilfs, we should do the next best thing.

[VikingLord]

I just wanted to get the "longest post" award for this thread, so ...

I realize it’s an age-old debate over who carries the most “influence” over a team’s performance, coaches or players. And therefore who deserves the most credit/blame when things go right or wrong. Here’s my take, not saying I’m right.

I’ve coached (lacrosse) at several levels up to college. If you are not familiar, overall similar staff responsibilities to football, i.e., HC, OC, DC, etc. “Special teams” would be goalies and faceoff guys, they’re mostly crazy. Anyways I spent most of my time as a HS HC and had great teams, good teams and mediocre teams (fortunately never any horrid teams). I coached players that went on to win big awards at the college level, including one who won the lacrosse equivalent of the Heisman Trophy. And over all my years of coaching, I came to the following conclusion:

The coaching staff/management are responsible for 75% or more of the “issues” a team exhibits over time.

My staff, just like Zim’s and pretty much every other HS/college/pro staff, ALWAYS knew what the problems were. We were emphatic about going over game tape, not only in hindsight but in scouting. If you know your sport and you have the luxury of watching practice and game tape in the finest detail you can stand, then you KNOW what the problems are. The only real restraint is the number of hours in the day. And if you can hire someone to break down and parse the film first so you don’t have to? Wow, luxury of luxuries for a coaching staff.

I’ll repeat that for posterity – ALL THE IN-GAME PROBLEMS THIS TEAM HAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY ZIMMER AND THE COACHING STAFF. That is probably the only 100% safe statement I’ll make here.

Now, there are some “issues leading to losing” that are very difficult to overcome. Lack of team speed when compared to the opposition – that’s a killer in just about any sport. And overall talent of course. But a good/great coaching staff mitigates all problems outside of the most difficult. Schemes can help disguise lack of team speed but cannot overcome it. Enough discipline to not have too many D players on an extra point try so your nose tackle calls a timeout we don’t have? Enough strength and technique in the OL so they don’t get dumped on their keyster every other play? Well, a good staff makes sure those things do not happen.

Let’s take one “issue” pointed out in this thread (also pointed out myriad of times before of course), that under pressure, Cousins gets skitterish and “cannot see” open receivers more than 15-20 yards away. If you don’t think this is a “new” problem, then there is no way our coaching staff has not identified it as an ongoing issue. If you are the HC making $5M a year, what’s the solution? You have contractual obligations to the QB – but do you just continue to let it happen, 30-40-50 games into your tenure with Cousins? Doesn’t that sound a bit preposterous?

The sign of a GOOD coaching staff is that the problem sets, if they are noticeable, are NOT the same over time, with old or new personnel. Issues with a specific player (i.e., a WR with brick hands) stick out as an anomaly. Or an OL who gets literally BLOWN backwards on half of all snaps – that stuff should only be happening to ONE player every 3-4 years on a well-coached (including strength coach) team. And only during practice. Or maybe never.

The sign of a POOR coaching staff is having the same in-game problems over and over. And it does not matter if you have the same personnel making the same mistakes (coaches are failing to help identify and correct problems), or if the mistakes are with different/new personnel (our kickers, etc.), which means our systems to teach the program to newcomers are failing.

That’s a long-winded way to say IMO our coaching staff needs to go. Say all you want about who’s doing what out on the field this year – if you can plug in different years and describe the exact same problems, trust me, it’s the coaching staff.

I’m a statistics/calculus guy from years back. I don’t really know what the currently accepted definition of “statistically impossible” might be, but I can say that it’s “almost statistically impossible” for us to have pretty much whiffed on every single offensive lineman we’ve either drafted or brought to the team in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening – having O’Neill be the one “standout shining star” in the bunch, are enormously low (picking O’Neill was a quick ad-hoc that I did not bother to research, correct me if I’m wrong). That probably tells you that our coaching and teaching have been really, really bad in that area for a long time. And once we “teach them to be mediocre or worse”, they pretty much stay that way.

As HC, it is YOUR JOB to identify this type of failure early on and get to management/owners and tell them we need to identify/interview/hire the absolute best OL and strength coaches from the pro or college ranks that money will buy. Zim should be saying “I don’t care if you pay them more than me!”. Maybe those efforts have taken place over the years and were not fruitful, but somehow, I doubt it. We’ve pretty much been the definition of nepotism and the buddy system when it comes to coaching hires over the last 10 years.

So, what’s the upshot for this team, this season? Whew, who knows. Zim and staff are not complete idiots, but - stop me if you’ve already seen this movie - performances on both sides of the ball have been spotty and inconsistent. Overall roster has good amounts of talent, certainly a handful of very good players capable of making big plays on both sides of the ball.

All I can say is this – with our current mix of coaches on the hot seat, coaches trying to prove themselves, young players trying to develop and veterans hoping to prove their next contract – well holy cow that is going to make for a few exciting wins and more than a few excruciating losses the rest of the way.

Zimmer isn't the solution and I don't want to defend him because I think it is time to move on, but there seems to be this narrative that if we just got rid of the HC, a team that isn't close to competing with the best teams in the NFL talentwise would suddenly be winning SBs.

Oh yes, very true. Exhibit A is the Lions. And not only “get rid of the HC”, but also the notion that all we need is to replace Cousins (Stafford from Exhibit A). It takes an entire staff that knows what the heck they are doing, but it all starts with the HC. Even if you have an all-world-talent QB like Stafford.

Don't worry though, Zimmer will be fired after we miss the playoffs, Rick, the guy who has employed that HC all these years instead of moving on will keep his job…

Last time I looked it up, both Zim and Rick report directly to Mark Wilf. While certainly plausible that Rick stays on and leads the search for a new HC, as GM’s “lead the search” for new HC’s all the time, that does not mean any future HC will report to the GM.

If the Wilfs think we need to move on from Zim, I could see them keeping Rick just so there is some continuity and not a wholesale firing of close to 60 front office people at once. I just can’t see the Wilfs pushing the button on that much turmoil in a single offseason.

Excellent post and observations. When a team stays stuck in the mud for a long time it can be difficult to deconstruct the issues because there are so many things going wrong all at once, but you laid out a very clear path to understanding root causes.

Personally, I think a lot also falls on the individual players, especially at the pro level. Coaches can show them their flaws, but the players have to want to work to address them too. If you have unmotivated players who are more interested in their contracts than in their play on the field, the best coaches in the world can't fix that stink.

That isn't to defend Zimmer per se, but for all his "good team" talk, there sure seem to be a lot of guys who are more than content to punch the clock and shrug their shoulders before getting ready to move on to the next game. I'm not at all impressed with the grit and personal character of a lot of guys on this team. They get their hats handed to them on a regular basis (at least the ones who actually get on the field and play) and seem more than fine with that result.

There are a few who are real pros and seem to take it personally when they blow it or get outright beaten, but not nearly enough to compete with teams full of guys like that like the Bengals and Browns who just want it bad and are willing to scratch and claw to get it.

[StumpHunter]

Isnt close to competing? According to who? The cardinals are arguably the best team in the NFC right now. We had them beat on the road if it wasnt for a missed FG/poor decision. They had Cincy, who's 3-1 right now, on the ropes and beat if it wasnt for a fumble in OT. They beat Seattle who is always one of the better teams in the NFL. And they just lost to one of the best AFC teams by a touchdown.

So we are competing with the best in the NFL? Sounds like the HC is doing a heck of a job.

The Vikings are 1-3 because of the GM, HC and the individual players. Blaming one and not all three is just wishful thinking of desperate fans who don't want to believe their team isn't good enough.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Isnt close to competing? According to who? The cardinals are arguably the best team in the NFC right now. We had them beat on the road if it wasnt for a missed FG/poor decision. They had Cincy, who's 3-1 right now, on the ropes and beat if it wasnt for a fumble in OT. They beat Seattle who is always one of the better teams in the NFL. And they just lost to one of the best AFC teams by a touchdown.

So we are competing with the best in the NFL? Sounds like the HC is doing a heck of a job.

The Vikings are 1-3 because of the GM, HC and the individual players. Blaming one and not all three is just wishful thinking of desperate fans who don't want to believe their team isn't good enough.

You can play the blame game all day but I've been repeating where the root of the problem lies and that is in the head coach. If our team wasnt good enough talent wise, they'd be getting blown out by teams like Arizona, Cleveland, etc. I've said from day 1, this teams floor is .500 or just under because of the talent alone that they have. That doesnt say shi# about the coach. If anything, that's good on the GM. It's the coaches job to do something with that talent. He no longer can.

It kills me that you want to blame the GM, do nothing but complain about Cousins, but somehow defend the guy that's between all that and coaches this team. LOL

[StumpHunter]

So we are competing with the best in the NFL? Sounds like the HC is doing a heck of a job.

The Vikings are 1-3 because of the GM, HC and the individual players. Blaming one and not all three is just wishful thinking of desperate fans who don't want to believe their team isn't good enough.

You can play the blame game all day but I've been repeating where the root of the problem lies and that is in the head coach. If our team wasnt good enough talent wise, they'd be getting blown out by teams like Arizona, Cleveland, etc. I've said from day 1, this teams floor is .500 or just under because of the talent alone that they have. That doesnt say shi# about the coach. If anything, that's good on the GM. It's the coaches job to do something with that talent. He no longer can.

It kills me that you want to blame the GM, do nothing but complain about Cousins, but somehow defend the guy that's between all that and coaches this team. LOL

I have said multiple times it is time for Zimmer to go. I just don't fool myself into thinking he is the only problem and call out anyone who makes baseless claims that he is. I am a realistic fan of this team who sees all of the flaws, not just the convenient ones. You should try be the same.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You can play the blame game all day but I've been repeating where the root of the problem lies and that is in the head coach. If our team wasnt good enough talent wise, they'd be getting blown out by teams like Arizona, Cleveland, etc. I've said from day 1, this teams floor is .500 or just under because of the talent alone that they have. That doesnt say shi# about the coach. If anything, that's good on the GM. It's the coaches job to do something with that talent. He no longer can.

It kills me that you want to blame the GM, do nothing but complain about Cousins, but somehow defend the guy that's between all that and coaches this team. LOL

I have said multiple times it is time for Zimmer to go. I just don't fool myself into thinking he is the only problem and call out anyone who makes baseless claims that he is. I am a realistic fan of this team who sees all of the flaws, not just the convenient ones. You should try be the same.

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. I mean whatever floats your boat. I mean I dont recall ever saying Zim was the ONLY problem. I said he was where the root of the problem lies. So dont try to twist my words to make yourself look better. You arent fooling anyone. We all know where your head lies and where your blame is directed 99% of the time.

[StumpHunter]

Ya know Stump, as I get older and as each day passes by, the more I think to myself, why bother arguing with a manipulative child on a Vikings message board anymore? Is it really worth my time? No it's honestly not. I have much better things to do. Almost 10 years of dedication to this board and I am nearing the end. I pulled back a lot this offseason and didnt intend to come back, mainly due to a few select members, you being the main culprit. And I know I havent been the only one. But I decided to give it one more shot and here we are. Another back and forth once again and it's just simply not worth my time. I'm burned out at this point with you.

So if I'm going to go out after 10 dedicated years of being on VMB, I might as well go out with a bang and say something I've wanted to for the past however many years. Go fuc# yourself Stump!

Mods, feel free to give me a permanent ban. SKOL to my true brothers on here!

I think it is good you are doing some reflecting on your life and how you go about spending your time, as well as what you let bother you to the point you react like this.

People disagreeing with you on a message board should not get you this upset. I am not disparaging your family, I am not getting personal at all, yet here you are losing it over a stupid football team. That isn't healthy, and I really do hope you actively work on bettering yourself so that dumb stuff like this doesn't get to you.