Vikings' defensive discord raises concerning questions

[Purple Reign]

This is the first time I've ever really had much discussion with him and don't read many of his posts but I'll definitely follow your lead now.

[Fran the Man]

I'll second that;

[Bigwehrm]

Fans of other teams are allowed to post here, folks. Let's stay on topic.

YEAH they can but do they have to be the only one caught up in chicken fights with others on this board. It's more than a little annoying. He's only here to be a pain.

[Jordysghost]

Exactly. I've never once responded to the guy. I recognize him as troll who delights in rubbing salt in our wounds but is apparently a good friend of the Mods. Otherwise, how in the world is the guy allowed to time and again come onto a Vikings Forum and rant and rave about how much better his team is than ours? (Of course he's right but still, why allow it?)
He's devilish good at desguising his comments as just healthy banter, when it's obvious to me but apparently not the mods, that he's here just to screw with us.
I'd like to suggest everyone just follow my lead here and just simply stop responding to him. He'll go away when that happens, trust me.

Inaccurate but interesting viewpoint, though im certainly sorry you feel this way.

[Jordysghost]

No that's not necessarily the adjustment but ok. No less we then had to become primarily a shotgun team because of losing AP and because our OL couldn't hold up on a 7 step from under center. There was way more that went into that change than you think

That is nearly always the adjustment to a O line that is either bad or injured, you play the short game and use quick developing plays, preferably in the shotgun.

[Muqali]

Brian Billick said this type of thing happens a lot more than you think. The fact that Zimmer is straight forward about what goes may or may not be healthy, but I admire honesty in pretty much all forms. I thought that's what we liked about Zimmer. The sad truth in sports is the only thing that really matters is winning.

[Mothman]

YEAH they can but do they have to be the only one caught up in chicken fights with others on this board. It's more than a little annoying. He's only here to be a pain.

If I believed that was true, I would have banned him long ago.

[chicagopurple]

actually, I usually find that Jordy is pretty spot on in his analysis...it's just that we Vike Fans are constantly losing, so getting a outsiders view is usually painful.....Reality is our organization has been a chronic failure and his Pack has been very much the opposite. I AM envious of the Packs Front Office and their QB.....they always, always draft well and KEEP their talent. We do quite the opposite and try to make up with it by mediocre trade moves. It sucks, but its the truth.

[mansquatch]

Injuries are NOT an excuse for this putrid season. Both the Bears and the Packers had plenty of injuries.......
If our OL had remained intact, it was still staffed by failures...ie Clemmings, Kalil, Fusco and some guys with chronic injuries who were never going to be right again. That is a recipe for failure from the start.....and all on Spielman
Its hard to blame either coach for our offensive problems when they werent given the tools to succeed. BUT , it looks like Zim is having a problem simply being the leader. THAT is rather ominous. IF a head coach loses control of the locker room, he is toast.

anyone who thinks we will be a contender next year with the talent we have this year, simply by keeping it all injury free is living a day-dream. We are not a team with realistic Super Bowl talent.....not by a mile.

The Packers never lost their best player. The Viking did in week 2. The Bears have been putrid this year, so they show that Injuries are an excuse for a putrid season. Do you think the Packers would be looking at the Division crown right now if Rogers had been hurt in week 2? Or is that not an excuse? Every roster is different and every roster is weak in different areas. By week 5 the Vikings Roster had over half of it's offense manned by backups. That is not normal.

I've been stressing this a lot: It is very difficult to gauge future performance based on this season. 50% of the offense was played most of the season by backups AND they switched systems in their 7th game. In light of these factors it is very hard to see the prior two years plus this year add up to any kind of trend. Some things are the same, others are not. You have to acknowledge the differences vs. just saying "It was the Vikings." Well actually I guess you don't, just do not expect me to find many places to agree with you.

On the Defense what changed? Did the physical talent suddenly fall out of bed? Or is it purely mental? If it is mental then there is reason for optimism. ST seems to be on a pretty good track as well. Can the offense be better just by being healthy? Maybe. If you say no, then based on what? 1/2 the players playing right now are backups. If you say yes, then based on what? Again, half the players playing are backups. I think they will be better simply because half the guys playing are backups. The question is how much better? I don't think they are going to score 30 points a game, but can they get to 25? I don't know.

[Mothman]

The Packers never lost their best player. The Viking did in week 2. The Bears have been putrid this year, so they show that Injuries are an excuse for a putrid season. Do you think the Packers would be looking at the Division crown right now if Rogers had been hurt in week 2? Or is that not an excuse? Every roster is different and every roster is weak in different areas. By week 5 the Vikings Roster had over half of it's offense manned by backups. That is not normal.

I've been stressing this a lot: It is very difficult to gauge future performance based on this season. 50% of the offense was played most of the season by backups AND they switched systems in their 7th game. In light of these factors it is very hard to see the prior two years plus this year add up to any kind of trend. Some things are the same, others are not. You have to acknowledge the differences vs. just saying "It was the Vikings." Well actually I guess you don't, just do not expect me to find many places to agree with you.

On the Defense what changed? Did the physical talent suddenly fall out of bed? Or is it purely mental? If it is mental then there is reason for optimism. ST seems to be on a pretty good track as well. Can the offense be better just by being healthy? Maybe. If you say no, then based on what? 1/2 the players playing right now are backups. If you say yes, then based on what? Again, half the players playing are backups. I think they will be better simply because half the guys playing are backups. The question is how much better? I don't think they are going to score 30 points a game, but can they get to 25? I don't know.

The unknown future of a number of players complicates the matter even further. It's very hard to project how the Vikings will do next year because their roster could look quite different.

On the other hand, I think there are pretty clear trends over the last 3 years, injuries or not. Of course, the undefined future of the OC position complicates that too.

By the way, it's worth noting that Thielen is an RFA after this season. I assume they will try to keep him but considering the way he's performed this year, that might get interesting.

To me, the Vikings look more like a team in the early stages of a rebuilding period than a team 3-6 years in and ready to make a run.

[mansquatch]

There is little doubt that they were set up for a run in 2016 before the parade of injuries started.

Thielen and Patterson will be up for FA this year. Thielen will command a hefty payday. CP84 adds a lot to this club even if it is somewhat unconventional. Not sure how that one is going to play out. If they are going to go for more of a short passing type offense I really want to think he'd be a critical component given his ability to make guys miss tackles.

To me a lot of this points to AP getting asked to reduce his cap hit or be gone all together. (I think we might see them grab a veteran RB in FA this year.) Some of the OL stuff will fall off or be reworked as well. Kalil is not going to be an 8 digit hit in 2017 if he is still on the team. The cap going up by $10MM will help also...

I think they have another year to make a run, possibly two, but then they are going to be bogged down by big defensive contracts. They need to be careful fishing FA to fix their OL woes or they will end up with dead money and an inability to sign core defensive guys. Rhodes is going to get a monster payday I believe next year. I really think health is a key component, that and can they get that OL to something near middle of the pack so they can mix up their offense more?

[Mothman]

There is little doubt that they were set up for a run in 2016 before the parade of injuries started.

I think that depends entirely on each individual's perspective. I saw plenty of reason for doubt, although I was hopeful. I wasn't very confident in Bridgewater's game taking a big step forward or in the offensive line's ability to play well enough to make a deep playoff run possible. I thought they had a chance but I could see their razor-thin margin of error and the potential problems presented by lack of depth in key areas.

I was (and remain) dubious about the run defense and coaching as well.

Thielen and Patterson will be up for FA this year. Thielen will command a hefty payday. CP84 adds a lot to this club even if it is somewhat unconventional. Not sure how that one is going to play out. If they are going to go for more of a short passing type offense I really want to think he'd be a critical component given his ability to make guys miss tackles.

I'd certainly like to see him stick around.

I think they have another year to make a run, possibly two, but then they are going to be bogged down by big defensive contracts. They need to be careful fishing FA to fix their OL woes or they will end up with dead money and an inability to sign core defensive guys. Rhodes is going to get a monster payday I believe next year. I really think health is a key component, that and can they get that OL to something near middle of the pack so they can mix up their offense more?

I definitely agree that they have to manage the cap wisely as they transition into the next few years. They really need to put together several strong drafts in a row, starting next spring.

[chicagopurple]

I think the defense gave out because they were asked to carry the team all freaking year doe to the absolute absence of our OL....there were no long sustained drives with reliable running. Eventually the D will get fatigued and exposed. Our D is good but not great like the super bowl Ravens.....it just destroys the rest of the team when yolu have no OL, no running game and a vanilla passing game run by middling QBs.

[Purple Reign]

YEAH they can but do they have to be the only one caught up in chicken fights with others on this board. It's more than a little annoying. He's only here to be a pain.

I guess I don't see Jordy as being the problem so much as the people who are willing to engage in debates with him that are mostly just differing opinions that can't be proven one way or the other and not willing to just let it go.

[Mothman]

I think the defense gave out because they were asked to carry the team all freaking year doe to the absolute absence of our OL....there were no long sustained drives with reliable running. Eventually the D will get fatigued and exposed. Our D is good but not great like the super bowl Ravens.....it just destroys the rest of the team when yolu have no OL, no running game and a vanilla passing game run by middling QBs.

I think the D has held up pretty well but I don't attribute their performance against the Bears, their collapses against Detroit or their bad outings the past two weeks to fatigue or frustration with the offense. I think they've just been out-schemed and/or outplayed at times. In all of those instances, I think opponents were able to find and exploit matchup problems, take advantage of blitzes, etc.