Vikings Message Board.Com

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:17 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:58 am
Based on the season if we go to the Pack we will get beat. Anything can happen but they proved to be the better team twice. We haven't played the 49ers but they are also a better team IMO. Can we beat them? Sure. But it's highly unlikely. We don't have the talent for those teams.

There is no way we can go to GB if we win. If we win tomorrow we automatically go to SF. The only way we could play GB is in the nfc championship

wouldn't that be something!

Mothman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:28 am

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:31 pmHe won multiple games against playoff teams in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Was 5-1 against the division in 2015 including a win in the final game needed to win the division against a division rival. 5-1 in 2017 as well. Had a winning record against playoff teams at 4-3 in 2017, .500 record at 2-3 in 2016 and was 2-5 in 2015 for a total of 8-11. Not great, but I doubt any coach but Belly's record against playoff teams is great. 2-10 I believe since then, with both wins coming against a 9-7 Eagles team. Recency bias is feeding this bad against winning teams stuff.

It's not a recency bias. It's just the reality of the past two seasons.

BTW, 2-3 obviously isn't a .500 record and 8-11 is worse than "not great". It's well below .500 and I'm guessing if you add up his overall record against playoff teams over the past 6 seasons, it would look worse.

It really looks to me like he has a ceiling and I'm afraid we'll probably see more evidence of it this postseason (although it would be nice to be wrong about that).

It was 3-4 in 2016, with wins against GB, Giants and Houston and losses to the Lions X 2, GB, and Dallas. I thought they were 3-3, wrote 2-3 and said they were .500. All wrong.

My guess is that 9-12 versus playoff teams is pretty good compared to every coach but Bellicheck, especially since every time you beat a team their odds of making the playoffs go down dramatically in a 16 game season, every time you lose those odds go up.

2-10 with those wins coming against a 9-7 Eagles team is terrible over the last couple seasons. Maybe Zim has lost his ability to beat good teams, or maybe signing a guy who is 4-25 against winning teams has something to do with it?

Either way his ceiling is at worst the NFCCG with a backup RB and QB. That is indisputable.

frosted wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:16 pm https://twitter.com/nickolsonnfl/status ... 37377?s=21

Win Percentage Over the Last Five Years for Each Team with a QB Carousel (no single QB starting more than 32 games):

• Browns: 21.5% (Ranks 32nd)

• 49ers: 37.5% (Ranks 29th)

• Jets: 38.8% (Ranks 28th)

• Broncos: 50.6% (Ranks 15th)

• Vikings: 62.2% (Ranks 5th)

Broncos have that win % because they had a SB caliber team in 2014 and 2015, that has regressed since. Zimmer took over a terrible team in 2014, and turned them into a playoff team.

Far more impressive.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:10 amBroncos have that win % because they had a SB caliber team in 2014 and 2015, that has regressed since. Zimmer took over a terrible team in 2014, and turned them into a playoff team.

Far more impressive.

That accomplishment gets puffed up to a considerable degree but the reality is Zimmer took over a team that was just one year removed from a playoff appearance and needed an infusion of defensive talent and a change at QB. They got both and improved their record by a game and a half, from 5-10-1 to 7-9. When you consider that the 2013 Vikings lost 4 or 5 games with defensive collapses in the final minutes, it's pretty easy to see the infusion of defensive talent made a difference but also that the team wasn't that far away from contending for a playoff spot again. Zimmer did a solid job, of course, but the Vikes didn't make a huge leap forward in terms of wins and losses. When they returned to the playoffs a year later (in 2015) they did so using almost the same basic approach that got them there 3 years earlier, in 2012 (Ie: put the offense on Peterson's back and play good defense). I think stabilizing the QB position and upgrading the talent on defense made a bigger difference than coaching.

My point is Zimmer didn't take over a perpetual bottom-dweller. He took over a team that had just followed a playoff season with a bad one. The 2013 season went off the rails for a variety of reasons: injuries and developing mess at the QB position, an aging defense, etc. Management/ownership left Leslie Frazier dangling as a "lame duck" coach and that didn't help either. In fact, if the Vikes leave Zimmer dangling without an extension this year I won't be surprised if the 2020 season gets messy too.

To put it very simply: Zimmer came to the team and received the kind of commitment from management his predecessor never had. I believe that made a difference.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:07 amEither way his ceiling is at worst the NFCCG with a backup RB and QB. That is indisputable.

I agree, that's indisputable.

Reports are that Mike McCarthy is on the way to Dallas to interview for with Jerrhuh.

There’s a reason this team does well every other year. Weaker schedule, perform above average. Stronger schedule, perform below average. It’s the definition of an average team.

I don’t think Zimmer is leaving. I think they’ll underperform next year, right as Zimmer as Cousins contracts are up and they’ll clean house. If they manage to string together two playoff seasons in a row, both will likely be extended. I think Rick’s fate, and rightly so, will also be tied to next year.

Here’s a fact about strength of schedule that very few people consider.

If you are a last-place team, you’re always going to appear to have a tougher schedule.

Take Arizona. They played six games against SF, Seattle and LA. That’s six games against winning teams before they get out of their own division. Then they play against every team from divisions in both conferences. That’s a minimum of two more winning teams.

Contrast that to the Vikings. Green Bay is the only other winning team in the division. That’s 2 games. They played the NFC East (1 winning team) and the AFC West (1 winning team). That’s a total of four.

Take any playoff team, and you’ll find the same scenario. Look at New England most years. They normally play no games within the division against winning teams.

If you look at every team in the NFL, you’ll see this pattern. The bottom teams all have cumulative SOSs of above .500. The playoff teams all have cumulative SOSs of below .500.

In other words, part of the reason teams like the Vikings appear to have weak schedules is that they don’t lose to inferior teams. For the most part, Zimmer’s teams have done that.

That being said, the VERY BEST teams also win some games against winning teams. We’ve definitely fallen short on that mark, especially this year. Coming into this season, Zimm was 13-28 against winning teams, which seems pretty bad. But how bad is it? Aaron Rodgers was 17-26-1 coming into 2019. In fact, the only QBs with records above .500 against winning teams were Brady and Wilson. I know those are quarterbacks, but it’s the best I can find right now. But in 2017, we were really good against winning teams. Not a surprise, given our 13-3 record.

Point being, the first measuring stick for a coach or QB is whether they beat the teams they’re supposed to beat. Zimmer does that, for the most part. To regularly beat winning teams is a much rarer feat.

This is neither an endorsement nor an indictment of Mike Zimmer on my part. It’s just perspective.

Thanks for those observations about strength of schedule, Kapp. Those are good points!

Landon, I share your view of how all this is likely to play out.

Mothman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:54 am

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:10 amBroncos have that win % because they had a SB caliber team in 2014 and 2015, that has regressed since. Zimmer took over a terrible team in 2014, and turned them into a playoff team.

Far more impressive.

That accomplishment gets puffed up to a considerable degree but the reality is Zimmer took over a team that was just one year removed from a playoff appearance and needed an infusion of defensive talent and a change at QB. They got both and improved their record by a game and a half, from 5-10-1 to 7-9. When you consider that the 2013 Vikings lost 4 or 5 games with defensive collapses in the final minutes, it's pretty easy to see the infusion of defensive talent made a difference but also that the team wasn't that far away from contending for a playoff spot again. Zimmer did a solid job, of course, but the Vikes didn't make a huge leap forward in terms of wins and losses. When they returned to the playoffs a year later (in 2015) they did so using almost the same basic approach that got them there 3 years earlier, in 2012 (Ie: put the offense on Peterson's back and play good defense). I think stabilizing the QB position and upgrading the talent on defense made a bigger difference than coaching.

My point is Zimmer didn't take over a perpetual bottom-dweller. He took over a team that had just followed a playoff season with a bad one. The 2013 season went off the rails for a variety of reasons: injuries and developing mess at the QB position, an aging defense, etc. Management/ownership left Leslie Frazier dangling as a "lame duck" coach and that didn't help either. In fact, if the Vikes leave Zimmer dangling without an extension this year I won't be surprised if the 2020 season gets messy too.

To put it very simply: Zimmer came to the team and received the kind of commitment from management his predecessor never had. I believe that made a difference.

That 2013 defense was not just the worst in the NFL that year, it was the worst defense in the history of the franchise. Two seasons later it was a strength of the team.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:24 pmThat 2013 defense was not just the worst in the NFL that year, it was the worst defense in the history of the franchise. Two seasons later it was a strength of the team.

... and a year before that it was allowing an average of 21 points a game, which is what they allowed in 2014 after Zimmer took over and the roster had been upgraded. I followed all of it closely and as I said, an infusion of talent was necessary, it came in 2014 and that's a big part of why the defense improved. Zimmer didn't take the 2013 roster and weave straw into gold. He was provided with the support to build a good defense, he did it and then he used that defense and Adrian Peterson to win the division in 2015, all of which was well done.

Now PFT reporting Browns and Panthers will interview Stefanski

Bowhunting Viking wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:40 pm Now PFT reporting Browns and Panthers will interview Stefanski

This is the most Browns thing the Browns could do.

S197 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:33 pm

Bowhunting Viking wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:40 pm Now PFT reporting Browns and Panthers will interview Stefanski

This is the most Browns thing the Browns could do.

For sure. If they would hire him, I would hope he is smart enough to not buy a home there. Just get a 1 year lease apartment

Bowhunting Viking wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:40 pm Now PFT reporting Browns and Panthers will interview Stefanski

Steph must have some great qualities. That Brown deal is a coach killer. Panthers much better. Speilman should try and keep this guy. He knows the team and could replace Zim when he leaves. Best world keep him and get picks for Zim. We need the players.