Eight years ago today...

[Demi]

Favre was not the missing ingredient to a Super Bowl win and the cost of that failed "all in" run was substantial.

Really? Do you honestly believe if we hadn't signed Favre we really would have been in all that better of a position than we are now? Minus the best run the team has had in over a decade?

[J. Kapp 11]

No, almost getting to the Super Bowl isn't the goal. Winning the Super Bowl is the goal and building a team that can not only do that but sustain success over a substantial period of time is the biggest goal.

First, let me say ... I agree with you about the sustained success.

That being said, I'm not greedy at this point. I've been waiting almost 45 years for the first one!

[Funkytown]

No, almost getting to the Super Bowl isn't the goal. Winning the Super Bowl is the goal...

And that's what he thought he was going to do...win a Super Bowl. I guess the Vikings have been thinking that for over 50 years now, huh?

The point is: He got a heck of a lot closer to that goal with his short-sightedness than he probably would have otherwise.

Again, no complaints here besides not winning it all. It almost paid off, and again, if it would have...y'all wouldn't be crying in your beers over Childress, Favre, short-sightedness and everything else. Trust me. I get what you guys are saying, but the Favre gamble was worth it to me. It meant a greater shot at the Super Bowl. I would take it every time.

[Mothman]

Really? Do you honestly believe if we hadn't signed Favre we really would have been in all that better of a position than we are now? Minus the best run the team has had in over a decade?

It would depend entirely on what else they did but I think it's possible. Signing Favre delayed the inevitable. Instead of entering the third year of a rebuilding plan under a new coach and a GM now they could be reaping the dividends of a youth movement that started years earlier and they might be coming off a division win and the best run the team has had in a decade.

First, let me say ... I agree with you about the sustained success.

That being said, I'm not greedy at this point. I've been waiting almost 45 years for the first one!

LOL! I hear you. I'm tired of the long wait too. Maybe this will be the season they get it done.

[Funkytown]

Exactly... because he created a problem that can't be fixed quickly.

No. Because he wasn't the entire problem. The 3-13 season to follow was proof. Frazier and company blew some games. Lions, Bucs, Raiders...too many to remember. Childress had nothing to do with it. There was enough talent on that team to win more than 3 games. Trust me. We threw away a few of them...which actually made me miss Childress even more.

[mondry]

Right, I think most people hear the term "all in" and don't necessarily understand the depth of how "all in" we actually were. We spent picks trading up to take toby gerhart for the simple fact that if Peterson got hurt we needed a RB who could fill in and not derail the entire season. Trading that 3rd for Moss is another example. Another area was in the salary and contracts of players. We over paid in free agency and resigning our guys, even back ups because all that mattered was keeping the team together for 2009 and 2010. If you remember the first thing Frazier and co had to do in 2011 was cut Bryant Mckinnie because we simply were that far over the cap! That's the exact opposite of how Childress came in and had all kinds of cap room to do what he wanted. In that sense we were still trimming the fat before we could work on any improvements.

Actually, the 2009 push wasn't THAT bad, it pretty much set us back at QB by say 1 year and the rebuild by 1 year. What REALLY sucked was 2010 where the window had closed and they tried to force it open again. That one essentially set us back another 2 years by itself. (2010 and 2011)

[Mothman]

No. Because he wasn't the entire problem. The 3-13 season to follow was proof. Frazier and company blew some games. Lions, Bucs, Raiders...too many to remember. Childress had nothing to do with it. There was enough talent on that team to win more than 3 games. Trust me. We threw away a few of them...which actually made me miss Childress even more.

Then honestly, Melanie, I'm not sure you're full grasping what happened. I mean no insult by that and I'm not saying Childress was the entire problem. In fact, I've gone to great pains to emphasize that he wasn't the entire problem! However, the 3-13 season in 2011 was evidence that Childress' approach led to disaster. the last two seasons have been all about recovering from his botched approach and replenishing the roster. The 2011 season didn't occur in a bubble. That team was short on talent and experience, forced into deep rebuilding mode because in previous years the Vikes had clung to too many aging, overpaid veterans for too long and because Childress left an absolute disaster behind at QB. Maybe you're right and there was enough talent on the 2011 team to win more than 3 games but there wasn't enough to win much more. It's just not accurate to say Childress had nothing to do with what happened that season. He had everything to do with it because it was his approach that left the roster in the state it was in and Spielman, Frazier and company had absolutely no chance to fix what was wrong in one year.

[Funkytown]

Then honestly, Melanie, I'm not sure you're full grasping what happened. I mean no insult by that and I'm not saying Childress was the entire problem. In fact, I've gone to great pains to emphasize that he wasn't the entire problem! However, the 3-13 season in 2011 was evidence that Childress' approach led to disaster. the last two seasons have been all about recovering from his botched approach and replenishing the roster. The 2011 season didn't occur in a bubble. That team was short on talent and experience, forced into deep rebuilding mode because in previous years the Vikes had clung to too many aging, overpaid veterans for too long and because Childress left an absolute disaster behind at QB. Maybe you're right and there was enough talent on the 2011 team to win more than 3 games but there wasn't enough to win much more. It's just not accurate to say Childress had nothing to do with what happened that season. He had everything to do with it because it was his approach that left the roster in the state it was in and Spielman, Frazier and company had absolutely no chance to fix what was wrong in one year.

Actually, I grasp it completely. I just like being sarcastic at times. Did I mention that I like Childress?

I see both sides of it. Childress was partly to blame, but so was Frazier and the guys. If coached better, we could have won 6-8 games in '11. Heck, we won 3...and gave a couple away. Up by 17 and 20 at home two weeks in a row...let me say it again...at HOME and we lose? Come on. Coaching, coaching, coaching. Childress was elsewhere. That is unacceptable, especially at the Dome. The Raiders game was pretty lame, too. Another winnable game (that I was at) that was lost due to poor coaching and the inability to make the right adjustments. I can't think of any other games right off the top of my head, but that's 6 right there. But, I'm not going to complain, we got Kalil out of the deal...so ha!

It's cool. All this just makes Frazier look good for what happened last year, in actuality it's more about Peterson, and the fact that Frazier's finally coaching the guys to their potential--something he FAILED to do in '11. Lucky for him, you guys blame Childress...and not the guy really at fault, Frazier. Lucky, lucky, lucky!

[The Breeze]

I think the Wyllfs(sp) are doing a great job after getting up to speed and trusting Spielman. I was definitely wrong about him.


The coach debate got me thinking about this article at espn: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/gre ... s-run-deep

particularly this section:

Shula played seven NFL seasons (1951-57), and was an NFL head coach for 33 seasons (1963-95) in Baltimore and Miami. In April, he visited the Dolphins' training facility in Davie, Fla., and met with coach Joe Philbin and the current coaching staff. Philbin, who joined Mike Sherman's staff in Green Bay in 2003, is part of the Walsh/Holmgren tree. But he's not opposed to learning from Shula and the Paul Brown brain trust.

"Coach Shula is a great connection to the tradition and the history of the franchise," Philbin said. "And you know, it's probably not a bad idea for myself, as a young head coach, and our staff to learn from the winningest head coach in the history of the league. He still knows a thing or two about football."

One thing Shula, 83, knows for sure: These days, head coaches delegate far more authority than they used to.

"With 20 assistant coaches, you've got almost every phase of the game covered with a coach," Shula said. "I think I had three or four when I started. Back then, you had one coach for a lot of different phases. Now it's important for the head coach to actually coach his assistants.



"The good thing is that teaching is easier than it used to be. Now, every move they make in practice is videoed. That is a tremendous tool."

There is a general perception that athletes today don't respect authority the way they did in Shula's playing days. Do today's coaches coach differently?

"No," Shula said. "You still see the same discipline problems we had back then. And you deal with them the same way. Coaching is still about getting players to buy in to your system. That's really what it is."

As the game has grown bigger (i.e., richer), it is harder for a head coach to have the singular impact we saw in, say, the '40s and '50s. In those days, football was often a family business. Now, with the average team worth more than $1 billion, successful entrepreneurs from other fields are the only ones who can afford to buy in. Those aggressive businessmen -- hello, Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder -- tend to want to be more actively involved.

"Look at the most successful coaches from that earlier era," said Joe Horrigan, the vice president of communications at the Pro Football Hall of Fame. "Halas was the owner of the Bears team that he was coaching. And Lombardi, Brown and Lambeau thought they were. They had total and direct control of their teams."

Today's coach is more of a CEO, coordinating more than 100 people toward the goal of winning games.

In todays game you have to have excellent people skills to succeed at head coach. You have to be able to delegate and deal with all the personalities, not just the divas. That requires major flexibility ,steady nerves and the discipline to stay the course..

[Mothman]

Actually, I grasp it completely. I just like being sarcastic at times. Did I mention that I like Childress?

LOL! yes... and I'm sorry I didn't catch the sarcasm. It's not always clear online.

I see both sides of it. Childress was partly to blame, but so was Frazier and the guys. If coached better, we could have won 6-8 games in '11. Heck, we won 3...and gave a couple away. Up by 17 and 20 at home two weeks in a row...let me say it again...at HOME and we lose? Come on. Coaching, coaching, coaching.

I didn't see it that way. I think those losses and blown leads were indicative of the lack of talent more than anything else. I don't believe that's a team that had 6-8 wins in them.

Childress was elsewhere. That is unacceptable, especially at the Dome. The Raiders game was pretty lame, too. Another winnable game (that I was at) that was lost due to poor coaching and the inability to make the right adjustments.

I think adjustments are overrated. Don't get me wrong, they make a difference but a coach can make all the adjustments he wants and if player A still can't cover player B after those adjustments are made, they don't need mean squat.

It's cool. All this just makes Frazier look good for what happened last year, in actuality it's more about Peterson, and the fact that Frazier's finally coaching the guys to their potential--something he FAILED to do in '11. Lucky for him, you guys blame Childress...and not the guy really at fault, Frazier. Lucky, lucky, lucky!

I take it that's more sarcasm?

[Reignman]

Again, no complaints here besides not winning it all. It almost paid off, and again, if it would have...y'all wouldn't be crying in your beers over Childress, Favre, short-sightedness and everything else. Trust me. I get what you guys are saying, but the Favre gamble was worth it to me. It meant a greater shot at the Super Bowl. I would take it every time.

Believe it or not, some "fans" (I don't know if any are on this board), were actually hoping we wouldn't win the bowl with Favre at QB because they couldn't get over the fact that he was an ex Packer. Oddly enough they were ok with Longwell and Sharper though haha. But imagine how painful '09 must have been for them. Well until that INT vs the Saints and then they were all "I told you so" lol.

[Funkytown]

Believe it or not, some "fans" (I don't know if any are on this board), were actually hoping we wouldn't win the bowl with Favre at QB because they couldn't get over the fact that he was an ex Packer. Oddly enough they were ok with Longwell and Sharper though haha. But imagine how painful '09 must have been for them. Well until that INT vs the Saints and then they were all "I told you so" lol.

Really? That is plain foolish. As odd as it was to see him in purple, he loved playing for us. As a matter of fact, I think I remember reading/hearing something about he and his wife discussing how '09 was the best time of his career. They loved Minnesota. Favre gave us his all. I would have loved it if we would have won the Super Bowl, for obvious reasons...but winning with Favre would have been that much sweeter. Of course Packers fans would be like "Oh. You needed a Packer to win the Super Bowl...it only took you 50 years..blah blah blah" We know how they are. lol. It would have been an even bigger "F YOU" from Favre to the Packers and that...that would have been beautiful! Ah...what could have been.

[Funkytown]

I didn't see it that way. I think those losses and blown leads were indicative of the lack of talent more than anything else. I don't believe that's a team that had 6-8 wins in them.

It's hard to believe that you don't believe it when we won 3 and blew two HUGE leads at home. Seems pretty easy to do the math that the team could have been a 6-8 win team. Too easy. And if lack of talent was the true issue, they wouldn't have been up by 17 and 20 back to back at halftime...I assure you that. You don't dominate in one half and do NOTHING in the second half because of talent. DID THE "LACK OF TALENT" STAY IN THE LOCKER ROOM OR SOMETHING?!?! It's because of the adjustments made at halftime by the other coach/team and Frazier and the Vikes failing to answer those with their own.

[vikeinmontana]

this thread has been remarkable. i want to say right now that michael bennett was the best running back we've had in the last 15 years and troy williamson just missed out on being a pro-bowler....

i have nothing else to add. except i'm baffled that red mccombs isn't in the pro football hall of fame yet...

[Funkytown]

this thread has been remarkable. i want to say right now that michael bennett was the best running back we've had in the last 15 years and troy williamson just missed out on being a pro-bowler....

i have nothing else to add. except i'm baffled that red mccombs isn't in the pro football hall of fame yet...

...yeah. You probably shouldn't quit your day job.

Don't worry about me. I'm stubborn. I don't change my mind for anyone but myself.