Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote:From Jim Souhan's Strib blog yesterday (I didn't even know he had one):
More at the links.

I usually blanch at these kinds of statements. If Souhan wants to present "many new coaches are shocked..." as his version of a fact, and he wants to be believed, he should probably back it up with, uh, something other than putting the words to paper. And what's his conclusion then? Do those new coaches ever "get over" the shock and become good coaches? Most? Some? Any? Those things would dictate whether his point has major, minor or no merit whatsoever. I mean, if the Harbaugh brothers were shocked when they started, I'm OK thinking that Zimmer may be shocked too.

As pointed out in other threads, I also believe that player A under coach A can be a completely different player under coach B. Just look at all the "castoffs" that are doing well in the NFL right now. Quite a few in the playoffs. Guy named Blount comes to mind. So I don't buy that "players are players and Frazier was stuck with them".

And many, many folks believe (there, I can do it too) that Frazier's problems went far beyond the QB position. And tell someone like Belichick about "good corners". What's wrong with putting the work in to make sure we have "good corners"? Belichick has had to play Edelman as a corner for goodness sake.

Look, pretty much every article *should* state "we've replaced the staff, no hindsight necessary it's a done deal, and no one knows what the new staff with bring but true fans are hoping for the best". Every ink and paper, blog, twitter, snapchat, vine, whatever should just copy and paste the above.

psjordan wrote:As pointed out in other threads, I also believe that player A under coach A can be a completely different player under coach B. Just look at all the "castoffs" that are doing well in the NFL right now. Quite a few in the playoffs. Guy named Blount comes to mind.

Would that be the same guy named Blount who averaged 5 yards a carry and rushed for over 100 yards for Tampa Bay in 2010? He's not doing anything this season he hasn't done in the NFL before.

So I don't buy that "players are players and Frazier was stuck with them".

A lot of factors impact how players perform: coaching, situations, health, experience, attitude ...

Consequently, I'm not sure what a phrase like ""players are players and Frazier was stuck with them" is supposed to mean. Frazier had the roster he was given (and presumably contributed to building) so in that sense he was "stuck" with it. Players have limitations. We all know that and I think we all acknowledge it. The factors I listed above can all impact whether a team gets everything they can from a player or not and nobody has more influence on a player's performance than the player himself. Outstanding coaching can definitely help a player reach his full potential but there is no scenario in football in which talent doesn't matter and matter a great deal. That's why the best players make so much money. That's why the draft is such a big deal. That's why coaches and franchises seek that talent out.

I don't disagree that a player can be a different player under coach A than coach B but coaching is rarely, if ever, the only variable in those situations.

And many, many folks believe (there, I can do it too) that Frazier's problems went far beyond the QB position. And tell someone like Belichick about "good corners". What's wrong with putting the work in to make sure we have "good corners"?

Nothing but the underlying assumption in that question is that the work wasn't put in and unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, it IS just an assumption.

Look, pretty much every article *should* state "we've replaced the staff, no hindsight necessary it's a done deal, and no one knows what the new staff with bring but true fans are hoping for the best". Every ink and paper, blog, twitter, snapchat, vine, whatever should just copy and paste the above.

That sounds pretty boring so I'm glad you're not an editor.

Mothman wrote: Would that be the same guy named Blount who averaged 5 yards a carry and rushed for over 100 yards for Tampa Bay in 2010? He's not doing anything this season he hasn't done in the NFL before.
A lot of factors impact how players perform: coaching, situations, health, experience, attitude ...

Consequently, I'm not sure what a phrase like ""players are players and Frazier was stuck with them" is supposed to mean. Frazier had the roster he was given (and presumably contributed to building) so in that sense he was "stuck" with it. Players have limitations. We all know that and I think we all acknowledge it. The factors I listed above can all impact whether a team gets everything they can from a player or not and nobody has more influence on a player's performance than the player himself. Outstanding coaching can definitely help a player reach his full potential but there is no scenario in football in which talent doesn't matter and matter a great deal. That's why the best players make so much money. That's why the draft is such a big deal. That's why coaches and franchises seek that talent out.

I don't disagree that a player can be a different player under coach A than coach B but coaching is rarely, if ever, the only variable in those situations.
Nothing but the underlying assumption in that question is that the work wasn't put in and unless you have evidence to prove otherwise, it IS just an assumption.
That sounds pretty boring so I'm glad you're not an editor.

I have the nagging feeling that your "range of coaching acumen" in the NFL is pretty narrow - that the only thing separating the winners and losers is player talent. That if our prior regime "had a QB", they'd have been "winners".

I don't buy that at all. If you look at consistently successful coaches, they and ownership are about the only constants over several year periods. Their teams draft late. Their coordinators and GM's get stolen. Players get hurt, get old, go somewhere for more money. Their draft picks are no more likely to turn great than anyone else's.

There is very little that favors a "winner" in the NFL, other than perhaps better FA's wanting to go there. So why do they consistently win and the Cleveland's consistently lose? How did KC go from 2-14 to 11-5 with essentially the same personnel? How does Belichick win with and without Brady - and this year losing his top 5 receivers and also starting five guys who were not even drafted? Do you really think Nick Fowles Russell Wilson, etc. were simply undiscovered gems, and that their NFL coaches had little to do with them successfully starting vs. ending up as a backup in CLE?

IMO coaching in the NFL is by far the biggest differentiator between winning and losing. And IMO what ends up being talked about as "player talent" is a big mix of natural abilities and how they are coached and developed in the NFL.

BTW didn't TEN waive Blount, then TB picked him up and then the Pats traded - Blount for Jeff Demps and a #7?

I think even Mr. and Mrs. Demps would agree that pretty much the definition of "NFL castoff" is two teams giving up on you and then being traded for Jeff Demps and a #7. Then again, Demps does average 14 yards per carry in the NFL.

psjordan wrote:


BTW didn't TEN waive Blount, then TB picked him up and then the Pats traded - Blount for Jeff Demps and a #7?

Blount was an undrafted free agent, he had an issue in college. I think he clocked a player on the sideline, went and seeked him out on his own sidelines.

psjordan wrote:I have the nagging feeling that your "range of coaching acumen" in the NFL is pretty narrow - that the only thing separating the winners and losers is player talent. That if our prior regime "had a QB", they'd have been "winners".

I don't buy that at all. If you look at consistently successful coaches, they and ownership are about the only constants over several year periods. Their teams draft late. Their coordinators and GM's get stolen. Players get hurt, get old, go somewhere for more money. Their draft picks are no more likely to turn great than anyone else's.

There is very little that favors a "winner" in the NFL, other than perhaps better FA's wanting to go there. So why do they consistently win and the Cleveland's consistently lose? How did KC go from 2-14 to 11-5 with essentially the same personnel? How does Belichick win with and without Brady - and this year losing his top 5 receivers and also starting five guys who were not even drafted? Do you really think Nick Fowles Russell Wilson, etc. were simply undiscovered gems, and that their NFL coaches had little to do with them successfully starting vs. ending up as a backup in CLE?

IMO coaching in the NFL is by far the biggest differentiator between winning and losing. And IMO what ends up being talked about as "player talent" is a big mix of natural abilities and how they are coached and developed in the NFL.

BTW didn't TEN waive Blount, then TB picked him up and then the Pats traded - Blount for Jeff Demps and a #7?

I think even Mr. and Mrs. Demps would agree that pretty much the definition of "NFL castoff" is two teams giving up on you and then being traded for Jeff Demps and a #7. Then again, Demps does average 14 yards per carry in the NFL.

I wrote a long response to this yesterday but removed it because I thought the main point was lost in the all the verbiage. If you want me to address any specific points, I will but after thinking about it, I'm just going to keep my response to this:

I absolutely do not think the only thing separating the winners and losers in the NFL is player talent. I can't make that clear enough. I think coaching and talent are both of crucial importance and I don't believe any team wins consistently unless they do a good job in both areas. Coaching influences performance on the field and good coaching can help players become better. Conversely, it's also clear that talent can make coaching look better and poor performances clearly make coaching look worse. These two aspects of football are inextricably linked and they are both necessary for a team to be successful.

I hope that clarifies my basic view on this subject.

Was there a press conference?

PurpleMustReign wrote:Was there a press conference?

Not yet! It's tomorrow at 11 A.M.

Zimmer was the guy I really wanted , hopefully we can get a greqat staff to go along with him and the Vikings can finally
win a championship ..

Did the Vikings interview a minority? I can't remember. Im being serious when i ask.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/fuji ... ach-011614

This is a great read on Zimmer. Scott Fujita, a former player of Zimmer's wrote it. Pretty amazing some of the things he says.


...The biggest thing that stuck out at me was:

Generally, I try not to get too caught up in judging team defensive performance by overall defensive ranking. I just don’t think that’s a very holistic measure of good (or bad) defense, or of the coordinator in charge. What I like to look at is a unit’s performance in specific game situations, because that generally tells you how well-coached a team is. I also like to evaluate how well the team can adapt and respond to factors beyond its control. Again, another measure of the caliber of coaching.

^This past season....we were awful in specific game situations such as our "two minute drill", blowing games, play calling, etc. That boils down to one person. It's nice to see Zimmer is the complete opposite!

PurpleMustReign wrote:Did the Vikings interview a minority? I can't remember. Im being serious when i ask.

Yes, they interviewed Todd Bowles.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/fuji ... ach-011614

This is a great read on Zimmer. Scott Fujita, a former player of Zimmer's wrote it. Pretty amazing some of the things he says.


...The biggest thing that stuck out at me was:
^This past season....we were awful in specific game situations such as our "two minute drill", blowing games, play calling, etc. That boils down to one person. It's nice to see Zimmer is the complete opposite!

I'm sorry, I find the idea that all of that boils down to one person laughable. Again, I have to wonder, do some of the people here believe the players have anything to do with the outcome of games? I constantly see posts like the one above that refer to football as if it were chess and the players were just pieces literally under the control of the head coach. It's baffling.

That said, I appreciate the link. Thanks. Overall, that was a good read. If Zimmer lives up to the hype and enthusiasm for him, he's going to be an excellent head coach.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/fuji ... ach-011614

This is a great read on Zimmer. Scott Fujita, a former player of Zimmer's wrote it. Pretty amazing some of the things he says.


...The biggest thing that stuck out at me was:
^This past season....we were awful in specific game situations such as our "two minute drill", blowing games, play calling, etc. That boils down to one person. It's nice to see Zimmer is the complete opposite!

Great take and spot on. Another example is the Timber Wolves. They are 0-11 in games decided by 4 points or less and like the Vikings this year, that goes well beyond just "oops we need more talent." You can see it so obviously as the games wind down, for 3 quarters or whatever, both the Vikings or Wolves are capable of keeping up with the opposing teams so what's up with the talent then? But as that 4th quarter comes around and those situations you mention where coaching and play calling really matter you can inevitably see the game slipping away and Frazier had no answers.

Zimmer and Norv alone will make up for about 2-3 losses Frazier and his crew were responsible for.

mondry wrote:Great take and spot on. Another example is the Timber Wolves. They are 0-11 in games decided by 4 points or less and like the Vikings this year, that goes well beyond just "oops we need more talent."

Yes, but it doesn't exclude the talent. The players are still the ones on the court or, to get back to football, on the field. It's too simplistic to just say "Frazier had no answers", as if that in itself is a logical explanation for late 4th quarter collapses.

I understand that coaching plays a role in key game situations. What I don't understand is why so many fans seem keen to ignore the role the players on the field, who are actually playing the game, play in those situations. Is the need to have one individual to blame that compelling?