I need....some optimism

[J. Kapp 11]

Fangio rejected Kubiak because Dennison was a part of the deal. You know, the guy who is coaching the worst unit on our football team this year? He is the reason Fangio went with his second choice at OC.

Sorry not positive, but it still irks me.

Dennison was the offensive line coach for the Super Bowl winning Broncos, so it's not like he's unqualified.

Sorry, but if a head coach won't allow his OC to hire the guys he wants to work with as his position coaches, then the head coach is the one with the problem. Screw the rumors. My take ... it's insecurity. Fangio didn't want to look over his shoulder at a former Super Bowl winning head coach on his staff, especially one as popular in Denver as Kubiak.

[StumpHunter]

Fangio rejected Kubiak because Dennison was a part of the deal. You know, the guy who is coaching the worst unit on our football team this year? He is the reason Fangio went with his second choice at OC.

Sorry not positive, but it still irks me.

Dennison was the offensive line coach for the Super Bowl winning Broncos, so it's not like he's unqualified.

Sorry, but if a head coach won't allow his OC to hire the guys he wants to work with as his position coaches, then the head coach is the one with the problem. Screw the rumors. My take ... it's insecurity. Fangio didn't want to look over his shoulder at a former Super Bowl winning head coach on his staff, especially one as popular in Denver as Kubiak.

Fangio wanted an Oline coach who was A, able to make the offensive line play better, and B, not hated by the players, fans and management. That is why he drew the line on Dennison, despite Kubiak being his first choice at a much more important coaching position than Oline coach.

[mansquatch]

Sparano operated in a very similar situation with Shurmer and they were quite successful in 2017. Zimmer has a good track record with this type of model at this point in his career. To a point, that I do not find this criticism credible. It would be more viable if they had no history, but they do have history and it is positive.

Even if I accept that the Sparano-Shurmer situation is comparable to the Stefanski-Kubiak situation as you claim, what happens if the outcome is poor? It's easy to point at the one example and say it worked out, but the offense performed well in that situation. It might have been because of that arrangement. It might have been in spite of that arrangement. However, that was a different year with different people, so there isn't much to base the claim on.

We all hope this goes well and the offense performs up to expectations, but if it doesn't, who takes the blame between Kubiak and Stefanski and further, at what point does Zimmer find it necessary to get more involved?

I don't think anyone on this board can answer that question with any certainty. The only way we find out the answer will be if the offense struggles, especially early. With any luck, 2019 will be a repeat of 2017 and we won't have to find out.

The question on whether or not we have the right people in the job is THE question going into this season. Offensive Coaching was a major issue in 2018. Nobody know how well it will work, including Mike Zimmer. What we can hang our hats on is that Kubiak has a long track record of success and lead a SB winning team. Will it work here? Who knows? So we rely on past performance as an indicator. Kubiak's past performance is very positive IMO.

As to the leadership structure itself the same is also true. No on can answer any questions with certainty on how well or not well they will work together. That uncertainty will be there until the season is over and we can assess based on results how well the partnership worked. My point is to say that this coaching staff, ie Zimmer, has had success in the past in having an OC and an Asst who is former HC/OC in an advisory role.

You can criticize because you do not know how it will work out, but really, that is the only leg the criticism has to stand on at this juncture.

IMO, an accurate assessment of the leadership structure on offense is that the Vikings are going back to a model that has worked for them in the past. Zimmer has successfully implemented this type of arrangement in the past. Also, Kubiak has had success offensively in the past. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that at the very least they deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have a positive track record in both veins of the criticism. If they lose 4 games in a row, then things change, but they haven't done that yet.

[mansquatch]

Just to add to this a bit, look at a team like GB: They hired a young new coach. They have no idea how well ANY of it is going to work. What if that new HC doesn't get along with Rogers?

For that matter look at other teams who decided the chase the Sean McVay trend and hire the young unknown. They have ZERO past indicators of success. They are basically clinging to "well it worked for LA."

I'll take the Vikings unknowns over the above any day of the week.

[VikingLord]

As to the leadership structure itself the same is also true. No on can answer any questions with certainty on how well or not well they will work together. That uncertainty will be there until the season is over and we can assess based on results how well the partnership worked. My point is to say that this coaching staff, ie Zimmer, has had success in the past in having an OC and an Asst who is former HC/OC in an advisory role.

You can criticize because you do not know how it will work out, but really, that is the only leg the criticism has to stand on at this juncture.

I can't concede that point.

Yes, group management without a clear chain of command can work. There are examples of it.

But I don't think anyone can argue that such an arrangement creates the real potential for a lack of accountability, backstabbing, power grabs, etc., in the event things don't go as planned.

With a clear chain of command, there is no question about accountability for results. Everyone knows where the buck stops and who bears ultimate responsibility for an outcome, be it good or bad.

Without it, things get messy, and in almost every case, once the dust settles the result is almost always another clear chain of command. In fact, I can't recall a single case where a team or organization that used a group management approach unsuccessfully replaced the failing group with another group. This is true in business or in sports or in pretty much anything.

I agree that nobody knows if it will work, and I concede that it can work (especially if, as Kapp believes, Kubiak really will be in charge and Stefanski will operate as his apprentice, thereby making this a de facto chain of command structure), but my point is what happens if it doesn't work and how will the Vikings deal with, or worse yet if it happens mid-season, recover from, that?

I am not predicting failure for this model. It could work spectacularly well for all I know. It's just for me, the downside risk is greater with this approach.

[VikingLord]

Just to add to this a bit, look at a team like GB: They hired a young new coach. They have no idea how well ANY of it is going to work. What if that new HC doesn't get along with Rogers?

For that matter look at other teams who decided the chase the Sean McVay trend and hire the young unknown. They have ZERO past indicators of success. They are basically clinging to "well it worked for LA."

I'll take the Vikings unknowns over the above any day of the week.

The age of a head coach doesn't change the fact that the team still has a single, identified-as-such head coach. It's still a clear chain of command, albeit one that tweaks the assumption that experience is a prerequisite for success at the highest levels.

[PurpleMustReign]

Just to add to this a bit, look at a team like GB: They hired a young new coach. They have no idea how well ANY of it is going to work. What if that new HC doesn't get along with Rogers?

For that matter look at other teams who decided the chase the Sean McVay trend and hire the young unknown. They have ZERO past indicators of success. They are basically clinging to "well it worked for LA."

I'll take the Vikings unknowns over the above any day of the week.

Most of those teams didn't have the talent that the Rams did/do. Green Bay has some talent, including one of the best QBs in the league. It's not like they are completely starting over.

Plus, after the way McCarthy was unceremoniously dumped, I have a hunch they couldn't get too many well known, established coaches to take the job anyway

[Dames]

Dennison was the offensive line coach for the Super Bowl winning Broncos, so it's not like he's unqualified.

Sorry, but if a head coach won't allow his OC to hire the guys he wants to work with as his position coaches, then the head coach is the one with the problem. Screw the rumors. My take ... it's insecurity. Fangio didn't want to look over his shoulder at a former Super Bowl winning head coach on his staff, especially one as popular in Denver as Kubiak.

It's possible you're right. It just seems fishy the way it was laid out. It could very well be a power trip/insecurity by Fangio though. It's not like head coaches don't have an ego.

I may have some hesitation on the Dennison hiring, but I feel pretty optimistic about the line actually. I think Kubiak is going to bring some really good things, and if he thinks Dennision is the guy to help, I'm not going to claim I know better than he does.

[mansquatch]

As to the leadership structure itself the same is also true. No on can answer any questions with certainty on how well or not well they will work together. That uncertainty will be there until the season is over and we can assess based on results how well the partnership worked. My point is to say that this coaching staff, ie Zimmer, has had success in the past in having an OC and an Asst who is former HC/OC in an advisory role.

You can criticize because you do not know how it will work out, but really, that is the only leg the criticism has to stand on at this juncture.

I can't concede that point.

Yes, group management without a clear chain of command can work. There are examples of it.

But I don't think anyone can argue that such an arrangement creates the real potential for a lack of accountability, backstabbing, power grabs, etc., in the event things don't go as planned.

With a clear chain of command, there is no question about accountability for results. Everyone knows where the buck stops and who bears ultimate responsibility for an outcome, be it good or bad.

Without it, things get messy, and in almost every case, once the dust settles the result is almost always another clear chain of command. In fact, I can't recall a single case where a team or organization that used a group management approach unsuccessfully replaced the failing group with another group. This is true in business or in sports or in pretty much anything.

I agree that nobody knows if it will work, and I concede that it can work (especially if, as Kapp believes, Kubiak really will be in charge and Stefanski will operate as his apprentice, thereby making this a de facto chain of command structure), but my point is what happens if it doesn't work and how will the Vikings deal with, or worse yet if it happens mid-season, recover from, that?

I am not predicting failure for this model. It could work spectacularly well for all I know. It's just for me, the downside risk is greater with this approach.

I guess I do not understand why you are so quick to dismiss this leadership team's past success with this model, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO the only evidence presently available about the individuals in question is their history whether it be about this structure or their past coaching. In both cases the history is mostly positive. I feel this is a reason to be optimistic, even if it is cautiously optimistic.

I think a lot of fans out there are putting a lot of weight into what happened last year and saying that is what will happen this year. That is how the sports media has conditioned people to think. Heck at this time in 2017 it was basically PHP, Kapp, and myself vs. the world saying this team had a chance to be really good. Folks get down in the dumps when things don't work, but it seems like they forget to figure out why and just focus on the what.

There is a lot about this team to like right now. In several ways it is entering this season looking better than the 2017 club, especially on the roster. The real question is if this Offensive Staff can find the success that the Shurmer-Sparano group found. As I've said all offseason, the coaching moves were the ones that mattered the most. We'll find out soon if they did the right thing.

[VikingLord]

I guess I do not understand why you are so quick to dismiss this leadership team's past success with this model, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't characterize my position as quick to dismiss the model. I'd say its closer to recognizing the potential downsides of the model are larger than if there is a clear chain of command. If the individuals work well together and complement each other, there could be strong benefits to the model as you point out from the experience in 2017.

I think a lot of fans out there are putting a lot of weight into what happened last year and saying that is what will happen this year. That is how the sports media has conditioned people to think. Heck at this time in 2017 it was basically PHP, Kapp, and myself vs. the world saying this team had a chance to be really good. Folks get down in the dumps when things don't work, but it seems like they forget to figure out why and just focus on the what.

I'm actually very optimistic about the 2019 Vikings. I don't remember where I was at preseason 2017, but a lot went right for the team that year, not the least of which was Case Keenum playing out of his mind. Some of that was coaching, but some of it was just blind luck and a great individual year by a player who before and after that performed very average.

As I've said all offseason, the coaching moves were the ones that mattered the most. We'll find out soon if they did the right thing.

Yes, we will, and I like your optimism and share it to a large extent. I think the team is poised for a big bounce back this year, and I think Cousins will do very well provided there aren't a lot of key injuries or other misfortune that strikes.

Really, all I'm trying to say regarding the offensive coaching situation is that things could get messy if the offense struggles. I'm not predicting it will struggle.

[J. Kapp 11]

Just to add to this a bit, look at a team like GB: They hired a young new coach. They have no idea how well ANY of it is going to work. What if that new HC doesn't get along with Rogers?

For that matter look at other teams who decided the chase the Sean McVay trend and hire the young unknown. They have ZERO past indicators of success. They are basically clinging to "well it worked for LA."

I'll take the Vikings unknowns over the above any day of the week.

Me too.

This whole thing with LaFleur is just weird. He spends like one season with Sean McVay, and suddenly he's the hot new OC simply by association. He goes to Tennessee, and they end up being terrible on offense. Then Green Bay hires him. I'm far from convinced. And the great Aaron Rodgers is now 35 and hasn't been able to stay on the field for the past two years. They think their defense is better. Color me skeptical. Not to mention, I get tired of the whole "they're Super Bowl contenders because they're Green Bay" thing. Gets old.

[Bowhunting Viking]

Just to add to this a bit, look at a team like GB: They hired a young new coach. They have no idea how well ANY of it is going to work. What if that new HC doesn't get along with Rogers?

For that matter look at other teams who decided the chase the Sean McVay trend and hire the young unknown. They have ZERO past indicators of success. They are basically clinging to "well it worked for LA."

I'll take the Vikings unknowns over the above any day of the week.

Me too.

This whole thing with LaFleur is just weird. He spends like one season with Sean McVay, and suddenly he's the hot new OC simply by association. He goes to Tennessee, and they end up being terrible on offense. Then Green Bay hires him. I'm far from convinced. And the great Aaron Rodgers is now 35 and hasn't been able to stay on the field for the past two years. They think their defense is better. Color me skeptical. Not to mention, I get tired of the whole "they're Super Bowl contenders because they're Green Bay" thing. Gets old.

Kapp, every word you typed in this post could have came from my keyboard on my phone. Spot on and my thoughts exactly.
First, in today's NFL it's amazing how so many guys get a fast track to a HC job due to one good, or even decent season as a Coordinator, or by simply riding the coattails of another who was the hot Coordinator or coach the year before. It's just weird. Gone are the days where a guy put in his time, paid his dues and spent years learning from a great coach and then earned his chance , and was actually given some time to try and build a winning culture.
These days a guy has a little success as a Coordinator, or even as a position coach, hes suddenly the hot new Guru and becomes a HC... then fired before he is really even given a true chance to implement a system and build a winning culture. It's sad really.
And AMEN brother to your comments on Erin and the Packers. Every year at this time I get so sick of the Packers being the front runners to win the division just because they are A. The Packers and B. The Almighty Rodgers is under center.
Over on NFL. com Bucky Brookes has an article right now that Rodgers is overrated and isnt a top 5 QB. Excellent to read. I'm sure if the lg powers that be would have Bucky fired and banned forever for speaking such Blasphemy if they could.
I personally hope Erin has a horrible season and his Supremacy starts to be called into question. No doubt the guy has been a great QB, but he still is a Packer lol, and the guy gets WAY too much credit for his TEAM success. Just my opinion anyhow

[Texas Vike]

Anyone in need of optimism should read this article:
https://www.dailynorseman.com/2019/7/28 ... gs-offense

[VikingLord]

Anyone in need of optimism should read this article:
https://www.dailynorseman.com/2019/7/28 ... gs-offense

I had no idea Cousin's under-center stats were so much better than his shotgun stats.

Makes you wonder what the offensive coaches were thinking last year. Maybe they just thought the OL couldn't hold up and figured Cousins had a better chance starting from the shotgun even if his career numbers to that point indicated the shotgun was weaker for him.

I am a little concerned about Elflein though. Man, I sure hope his performance last year was affected by injury because I'd have to agree with the writer just based on the eye test. He really struggled. The rest of the OL looks improved, although there are still some question marks, but Pat is easily the biggest question mark heading into this season.

As the writer notes, the zone blocking scheme can compensate somewhat for weak individual play at guard as the guards are rarely asked to physically dominate, but it sure would be nice to see all five OL play consistently competently this season.

[808vikingsfan]

Anyone in need of optimism should read this article:
https://www.dailynorseman.com/2019/7/28 ... gs-offense

I had no idea Cousin's under-center stats were so much better than his shotgun stats.

Makes you wonder what the offensive coaches were thinking last year. Maybe they just thought the OL couldn't hold up and figured Cousins had a better chance starting from the shotgun even if his career numbers to that point indicated the shotgun was weaker for him.

I am a little concerned about Elflein though. Man, I sure hope his performance last year was affected by injury because I'd have to agree with the writer just based on the eye test. He really struggled. The rest of the OL looks improved, although there are still some question marks, but Pat is easily the biggest question mark heading into this season.

As the writer notes, the zone blocking scheme can compensate somewhat for weak individual play at guard as the guards are rarely asked to physically dominate, but it sure would be nice to see all five OL play consistently competently this season.

I didn't read the article (maybe I should) but usually in shotgun, your'e in 2nd and long or 3rd and long and in obvious passing situations. Under center, you have the element of surprise (run, pass or PA). In other words, it's just a stat that means little. I'm guessing his QB rating is very high on 1st and short, 2nd and short too. Now if his ratings are high when he's under center on 2nd and 3rd and long, then maybe there's something there.