Post Bears Game discussion

[chicagopurple]

Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame

[TSonn]

It wasn't a lousy performance by any means. They played much better than the Vikings offense but they don't deserve a free pass.

This.

The defense wasn't special. They failed to create a game-altering play. The two "almosts" on the opening drive don't count, unfortunately.

I agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?

Rainy weather against a back-up QB in a below average offense seems like a great setting for our talented defense to make a statement.

[Dmizzle0]

This.

The defense wasn't special. They failed to create a game-altering play. The two "almosts" on the opening drive don't count, unfortunately.

I agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?

Rainy weather against a back-up QB in a below average offense seems like a great setting for our talented defense to make a statement.

Our defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.

[StumpHunter]

The pressure thing doesn't fly. He also had the 2nd longest time in the pocket of any QB in week 4. Not scrambling, not buying time, but just standing there looking for a receiver to throw too...and then checking down to Ham.

I mean, I didn't make it up: https://twitter.com/CourtneyRCronin/sta ... 0194011140.

Didn't you watch that video of all of his pass attempts? It was clear that Kirk made some bad reads and he was also pressured quite a bit. I don't think it's an either/or situation - both things are clear issues.

I did watch the video and he was pressured a number of times after holding the ball for way too long. I am not questioning the pressure number, I am questioning the fact he didn't have time to throw. He absolutely did on a good number of plays, and it did not matter.

But yes, there were times when the line looked terrible, particularly on every play they gave up a sack, so yeah, it isn't either or, it is both. It just wasn't so bad Cousins couldn't have had success if he were a better QB. When people imply that, I realize that their measurement of how well a line plays is based purely on QB success and nothing else.

[StumpHunter]

Meh, time of possession disparity is as much on the offense as it is the defense.

They're both factors but the offensive performance alone can't account for the 11 minute discrepancy. If the defense gets the opposing offense off the field quickly, that discrepancy doesn't develop.

If the defense had that exact same game and the offense scores a TD on that Diggs fumble drive as well as their other TD drive, we are talking about the great job the D did on Sunday holding the Bears to 13 in a 14-13 victory. That is a fact.

It's definitively not a fact. Its conjecture.

There's been a culture of excuse-making for the Vikings defense ever since Zimmer was hired. It's ridiculous. That was a solid, unexceptional performance by the defense on Sunday, nothing more. It's not as if they held a powerhouse offense at full strength to 16 points. Why is it so freakin' hard to simply acknowledge that they contributed to the loss? There's no compelling reason to place that unit above criticism.

If you really look at it objectively, the people making excuses for the defense are the ones saying it didn't play well.

A bunch of excuses for why a good statistical performance wasn't actually good.

[Mothman]

If you really look at it objectively, the people making excuses for the defense are the ones saying it didn't play well.

A bunch of excuses for why a good statistical performance wasn't actually good.

[TSonn]

I agree. When's the last time our defense won a game for us? Like, either buckled down in a close game and prevented the team from scoring OR forced turnovers / created points on defense when the offense was sputtering. Probably need to go back to 2017?

Rainy weather against a back-up QB in a below average offense seems like a great setting for our talented defense to make a statement.

Our defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.

"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.

Last game I can remember is 2017 @ GB. Though, that was against Brett Hundley.

[VikingLord]

Our defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.

"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.

Last game I can remember is 2017 @ GB. Though, that was against Brett Hundley.

A more recent example was the end of the last game against the Packers. Defense has to stop the Packers on their final drive to get the ball back for the offense. If they can get a 3-and-out, they'll accomplish that. The Packers want the clock to run, so they're going to be conservative on offense and try to get a few first downs, preferably on the ground.

This is the moment the defense can step up, be aggressive, and get the ball back.

They don't. IIRC, the Packers get 2 first downs on that final drive, one of which happens off a long cutback run that picked up like 8 yards. Yeah, the defense ultimately forces a punt, but without any time remaining for the offense to have a real chance.

This is the Vikings defense under Mike Zimmer. Good, but not great. Statistically good, but prone to huge errors and maddening inconsistencies for a veteran unit that has played together for so long.

[Dmizzle0]

Our defense literally kept us in games where our offense failed to capitalize.

"Kept in" games wasn't my question. When is the last time they came out and had a dominant performance and won us the game? A team with 5 first round draft picks starting on defense should probably come out and dominate, at the very least against the worst offenses in the league, every so often.

Last game I can remember is 2017 @ GB. Though, that was against Brett Hundley.

I understand that, fully dominating games is really hard to do especially being a team that's always banged up, my points is, given the offenses the Vikings played so far, the points they allowed, I believe justifies them as a great defense.

[mansquatch]

Here's the short version of my previous post:

At this point, in Spielman's 8th year as GM and Zimmer's 6th season as head coach, I find it difficult to focus exclusively on game-to-game problems when the chronic, overarching issues are so readily apparent. We can analyze the specifics of individual performances from week to week but the bottom line is the people in charge haven't built this team into the powerhouse it needs to be and persistent problems that run through the entire timeline indicate coaching/management issues.

Jim, I've said this a lot over the years: There is a lot more to this than just painting with broad strokes. In each of the bad years of Zimmer's tenure there have been circumstances out of his control. AP hitting his kid in 2014. You lose you best player for basically 15 games. You can sit and say a good coach would overcome that, but really? In 2016 which NFL coach could win a superbowl while starting 8 different players of Offensive Tackle? That is just ridiculous. Even 2018 had the death of Sparano literally days before Training Camp started. We still almost made the playoffs despite that mess. I suppose BB could have overcome that one right?

The QB thing is annoying also. Going into 2016, after winning the division and being a field goal kick away from the divisional round in the playoffs the GM is supposed to just scuttle the season when Teddy blows his knee up? Seriously? To not do that is to basically say "well guys, I don't have any faith in you, so we are starting Shawn Hill for 16 games. Hope you all enjoy the season." Spielman would have deserved to be fired if he had pulled that. So apparently any choice he makes there is bad. I guess Teddy blows up his knee and Rick is just hosed all the way around.

This year I will admit it is different. They haven't had a plague of injuries and coaching wise things have been stable. The 1st half defense against two quality teams has been terrible. Even worse, the QB is totally in the tank mentally. We were 2-2 in 2017. Patriots were 2-2 last year also. All different sets of circumstances. I think the defense will right itself, I'm not so sure about Cousins.

[VikingPaul73]

Rick should never have put the team in the position that Shaun Hill was the only option if Bridgewater failed.

He seemed to learn from that in 2017 by signing Keenum and then rolling with him.

But he’s quickly regressed and we essentially have another Sean that isn’t a viable option. But hey, sounds like Zimmer likes the way he helps Cousins prepare for games so....

[chicagopurple]

None of our QBs under Spielman have been good enough. Everyone is pining away for Teddy only because Cousins is so horrid. In truth, Teddys strongest skill was his willingness to throw the ball away rather then take a sack or INT. In reality he showed very little promise actually completing long pass plays, finding check off receivers etc. We have had in incredibly long drought in MN regarding QBs by draft or trade. Spielman has given us NO reason to believe he can find and groom a QB to get us to a Super Bowl and he has willfully neglected the Ol so , really, if he did find the next Brady.....we would go nowhere fast.

[808vikingsfan]

Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame

I think we're a little hung up because it was Chase Daniels that led that first long drive (which was lengthened because of the penalties). If we put "an accurate QB" in place of his name, would that change anything? What about "an accurate QB that handles pressure" because that what Chase was on Sunday. Some of these QB's sitting on benches are better than some starters and some are just as effective. Maybe they're on the bench because they can't sustain their play over an entire season. Daniels was a Heisman runner up for a reason, and it wasn't because he could run.

[808vikingsfan]

Sorry, but a defense that is just "good" against a back up QB who came in with no warning in the first quarter is pretty lame

I think we're a little hung up because it was Chase Daniels. If we put "an accurate QB" in place of his name, would that change anything? What about "an accurate QB that handles pressure" because that what Chase was on Sunday. Some of these QB's sitting on benches are better than some starters and some are just as effective. Maybe they're on the bench because they can't sustain their play over an entire season. Daniels was a Heisman runner up for a reason, and it wasn't because he could run.

[Mothman]

Jim, I've said this a lot over the years: There is a lot more to this than just painting with broad strokes. In each of the bad years of Zimmer's tenure there have been circumstances out of his control.

The same can be said for every coach, every season. They all face circumstances beyond their control. That was as true for Leslie Frazier as it was for Zimmer. Ditto for Childress, Tice, Green, Burns... we all know that. I'm not about to write a thesis-level critique of Zimmer and Spielman but you know very well that over the years, I have both acknowledged mitigating circumstances and gone into great critical detail. I'm not simply painting in broad, simplistic strokes when I say the Vikings need a change in leadership at the top.

There are always going to be excuses. There's always a mitigating circumstance of some sort. What counts is what the coach and GM do with the hand they're dealt and how well they're prepared to deal with it in the first place. When we see the same chronic problems year after year, even though the kind of circumstances/explanations you've put forward differ, it speaks volumes about the job team leadership is doing, about their strengths and limitations.

The QB thing is annoying also. Going into 2016, after winning the division and being a field goal kick away from the divisional round in the playoffs the GM is supposed to just scuttle the season when Teddy blows his knee up? Seriously?

No, he's supposed to build a team capable of handling a situation like that without desperately coughing up a first round pick for an expensive, injury-prone veteran who had never had a winning record as a starter. He's supposed to manage resources wisely and have a reasonable handle on the quality of his team.

To not do that is to basically say "well guys, I don't have any faith in you, so we are starting Shawn Hill for 16 games. Hope you all enjoy the season." Spielman would have deserved to be fired if he had pulled that. So apparently any choice he makes there is bad. I guess Teddy blows up his knee and Rick is just hosed all the way around.

Who do you think put the team in that position? Bridgewater's injury wasn't simply a misfortune that forced Spielman to rush, panic-stricken, into a major trade. It perfectly illustrates how poorly Spielman was managing the position. He put together the roster and decided (presumably with input from Zimmer) that Hill was sufficient as the primary backup. However, he clearly didn't actually believe that because as soon as Hill was forced into the lineup by Bridgewater's injury, Spielman traded for Bradford. There was no option on the roster, at the game's most important position, who could step in and start for a prolonged period of time. That's not an excuse in Spielman's favor, it's an indictment of his competence.

Again, a GM's job is about team-building. Injuries will happen, Players will miss time for one reason or another so building depth is important. Planning for difficult circumstances is critical, especially at QB, where starters go down around the league every season. I realize some players are almost impossible to adequately replace. A GM won't easily find a backup QB who can step in and play at the level of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady but Teddy Bridgewater? He was a starter who played like a solid backup. It was hardly impossible to have an option on the roster who might have been able to step in and help the team remain at a competitive level that at least approaches what they could have achieved with Bridgewater starting.

When it comes to Spielman and QBs, the bottom line question is how many years, chances and first round picks should he get to prove he can solve the team's long-standing QB issues?