Vikings Message Board.Com

Texas Vike wrote: I think a lot of Childress' success was dumb luck in acquiring Favre, who excelled DESPITE Childress rather than because of him.

I was a vocal critic of Brad Childress but even I'm inclined to give him more credit than that. Remember, he won a division title before they acquired Favre too.

With Zimmer, I see WAY more competence. Go watch his post game talk with his team on Vikings.com. This team loves him. They play as a team and they are determined to win because of a vision that he has created. It is early, I'll give you that. But I think the difference between Childress and Zimmer is huge and obvious.

I see a significant difference between them too but my point was not to draw out serious comparisons between Childress and Zimmer. It was to say let's "hold our horses" and maintain some perspective. With the exception of the notorious Les Steckel, every Vikings head coach since Van Brocklin has managed to get the team into the playoffs and all but Frazier and (thus far) Zimmer have won at least once in the postseason. I know we've been a defense-starved fan base for a long time so it feels wonderful to see a 3-0 Vikes team with such a good defense but it feels like Vikings fans have been ready to name streets after Zim and erect statues of him since the day he arrived.

It just seems premature to me.

Mothman wrote: He probably does but as I've been saying, it's Zimmer's team. The buck stops with him so whether he's heavily involved with the offense or minimally involved with it, in the end, the offense they put on the field is the offense of Mike Zimmer's Vikings. He's as responsible for the quality of their performance as he is for the performance of the defense and special teams.

That's all true at the end of the day. But if it's an agreed upon compartmentalization, then it stands to reason that in the day to day workings, it's Turner's call who sees the field. Just like it's Tre Waynes job to turn his head for the football.
While it certainly reflects on Zimmer's overall grade as a head coach, it seems more likely/hopeful that Turner might make changes before Zimmer does....or maybe not. I guess it stands to reason that if the offense continues to sputter through mid-season that Schumur could be promoted.
It's a pretty funky dynamic IMO

A funny thing regarding the Childress era is that his OC was one play away from winning consecutive superbowls in Seattle.

Crax wrote:I agree with you, I just wonder if it's something like zimmer making a deal when asking norv to be the OC, that norv would get pretty much full control. It's not at all like our current DC, who I wonder how much he really gets to decide.

Nunin wrote:That's all true at the end of the day. But if it's an agreed upon compartmentalization, then it stands to reason that in the day to day workings, it's Turner's call who sees the field. Just like it's Tre Waynes job to turn his head for the football.

Right, but my point is that ultimately who sees the field isn't Turner's call. It's Zimmer's call. Turner has the authority he's empowered with by the head coach.

While it certainly reflects on Zimmer's overall grade as a head coach, it seems more likely/hopeful that Turner might make changes before Zimmer does....or maybe not. I guess it stands to reason that if the offense continues to sputter through mid-season that Schumur could be promoted.
It's a pretty funky dynamic IMO

Maybe a change in OC's isn't even necessary. Perhaps there was a deal, as Crax suggested. In the end, it doesn't matter because the head coach is responsible for what we see on the field. If he's unhappy with anything from the playcalling to the use of personnel, he has to see that it changes and improves. It feels to me like fans who praise Zimmer often let him off the hook for the sub-standard offenses his team has had thus far. However, he's responsible for them. Just like the defense, they're a product of his decisions, even if he only made one BIG decision at the outset and handed the keys to Norv. I doubt it was quite that simple but hopefully, you see what I mean.

Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point. The Vikes are 3-0. They're winning with defense, special teams and just enough from the offense. Hopefully, they can continue winning and start getting greater contributions from the offense along the way.

i don't agree with anyone wanting to erect a statue of him after we hired him. i liked the hire, but more so, and this has been evident from day one with him, i like how the team plays all out for him. these vikings actually have guts. remember that stretch of our road losses over the course of two or three seasons? under those regimes we would have folded like a lawn chair today. and don't forget, zimmer's track record as a defensive coordinator goes back way more than just his vikings resume. at one point we literally could not play on the road. i'm simply optimistic and i don't see any signs not to be at this point. if anything, our fan base needs more optimism. i said the same thing about the bradford trade; i liked it, but didn't love it. but, it was a move we had to make and i hope it pans out. and i agree with whoever said childress got lucky with farve; end of story. zimmer wouldn't have put 12 men in the huddle like a moron. he is prepared and in that situation wouldn't have done something like that. historically, everyone wants to blame favre when it was the coaches fault.

I get your point, Jim. I'm not disagreeing about who is responsible, more just musing about who will budge first if the offense can't get going. I know wins make everything seem ok, but the playoff game vs Seattle is hard to forget. Norv has had the reigns to what has easily been one of the worst offenses I have ever seen for this organization (although it's easy to forget things that are not pleasant).
I want to see Zimmer do well because he is the anti-childress, if that means putting a boot in Turner's butt, I'm all for it.

Mothman wrote:I know we've been a defense-starved fan base for a long time so it feels wonderful to see a 3-0 Vikes team with such a good defense but it feels like Vikings fans have been ready to name streets after Zim and erect statues of him since the day he arrived.

It just seems premature to me.

Hmmmm....premature er... Nahhhh. Not going there

Did they say why Treadwell was inactive?

mosscarter wrote:i don't agree with anyone wanting to erect a statue of him after we hired him. i liked the hire, but more so, and this has been evident from day one with him, i like how the team plays all out for him. these vikings actually have guts. remember that stretch of our road losses over the course of two or three seasons? under those regimes we would have folded like a lawn chair today. and don't forget, zimmer's track record as a defensive coordinator goes back way more than just his vikings resume. at one point we literally could not play on the road. i'm simply optimistic and i don't see any signs not to be at this point. if anything, our fan base needs more optimism. i said the same thing about the bradford trade; i liked it, but didn't love it. but, it was a move we had to make and i hope it pans out. and i agree with whoever said childress got lucky with farve; end of story. zimmer wouldn't have put 12 men in the huddle like a moron. he is prepared and in that situation wouldn't have done something like that. historically, everyone wants to blame favre when it was the coaches fault.

I hear you about the optimism. I'm actually feeling pretty optimistic right now too. I guess where we differ is that I see a big glaring warning sign named "offense". I think it's entirely possible we've just seen the first 3 games of the Vikings first Super Bowl-winning season but I also think it's really hard to win a Super Bowl the way the Vikings have been winning thus far this season. I want to see offensive growth this year. It would greatly improve the team's chances if the defense was balanced by a more effective offense.

Nunin wrote:I get your point, Jim. I'm not disagreeing about who is responsible, more just musing about who will budge first if the offense can't get going. I know wins make everything seem ok, but the playoff game vs Seattle is hard to forget. Norv has had the reigns to what has easily been one of the worst offenses I have ever seen for this organization (although it's easy to forget things that are not pleasant).

I want to see Zimmer do well because he is the anti-childress, if that means putting a boot in Turner's butt, I'm all for it.

I think that might be exactly what's needed.

Nunin wrote:A funny thing regarding the Childress era is that his OC was one play away from winning consecutive superbowls in Seattle.

And he made the worst playcall in Super Bowl history.

Mothman wrote:

I was a vocal critic of Brad Childress but even I'm inclined to give him more credit than that. Remember, he won a division title before they acquired Favre too.
I see a significant difference between them too but my point was not to draw out serious comparisons between Childress and Zimmer. It was to say let's "hold our horses" and maintain some perspective. With the exception of the notorious Les Steckel, every Vikings head coach since Van Brocklin has managed to get the team into the playoffs and all but Frazier and (thus far) Zimmer have won at least once in the postseason. I know we've been a defense-starved fan base for a long time so it feels wonderful to see a 3-0 Vikes team with such a good defense but it feels like Vikings fans have been ready to name streets after Zim and erect statues of him since the day he arrived.

It just seems premature to me.

Sure. He hasn't won a play-off game yet, so you're literally right that it would be premature to laud him excessively. I don't see that too much. I liked the hire from the get go, which is why I chose the picture I did for this forum. I do see lots of optimism, and I feel that too. Like others have stated, it is so nice to be up by 12 with 7 minutes and feel CONFIDENT that our D can get it done. It was so completely the opposite of that just a few years ago--we KNEW that they would manage to lose and it was just a question of how they'd mess it up this time.

Most importantly: we are 3 and 0!!! Let's celebrate this win!

Texas Vike wrote:... Most importantly: we are 3 and 0!!!

.

...and just beat the defending NFC Champs... In their house.!

i agree mothman we most likely cannot win a super bowl with how we are playing offensively. but, i do believe we are better with bradford than bridgewater. time will tell and many factors will obviously come into play. if he can play like he did last week look out. today was a weird game all around and that third quarter he looked fantastic.

mosscarter wrote:i agree mothman we most likely cannot win a super bowl with how we are playing offensively. but, i do believe we are better with bradford than bridgewater.

I agree. I don't think Teddy makes that throw to Rudolph for the TD, nor does he make the throw to Thielen late in the game.

Maybe we should just start a "Teddy vs Sammy" thread and direct all comments regarding that topic to that thread... So it doesn't have to be discussed in every thread.