Vikings Message Board.Com

You mis-understood me. I think giving the reigns to Turner is minor in comparison to the decision to hire Turner. No coach can manage all three phases. He needs to be involved, but he cannot manage it all. It makes sense for a coach with Zimmer's background and expertise to not micro offense. (As an aside, Nick Saban lets Lane Kiffen run his offense and then (famously) chews him out when it sucks. So this approach can work at a high level.) So given that set of circumstances I think the decision to hire Turner is a much bigger mistake than the decision to give Turner the reigns. Your stats on Turner's NFL career support this point. It made sense to give him control.

Now as far the the lack of production, that is a different issue. Three large impediments in my mind:

1.) OL: Health or quality or Continuity, probably all of the above: Hasn't been competitive in pass protection for 2 seasons. Abyssmal in run blocking as well in 2016. (Vikings not alone in having challenges here)
2.) QB: Better than it has been, but still not great. At least not proven to be great. I think this has gotten better, but Jury is out.
3.) RB: AP probably done and probably too 1 dimensional for what this team needs. Not sure if Mckinnon is up to a full load of 16 games durability wise.

TE and WR have shown improvement, 2 Vikings WR on pace for 1000 yd season this year. Haven't had that since Carter/Moss.

Purple Reign wrote: The number of times you've responded to Jordy since the above post proves otherwise. It's getting a little old rehasing the same points.

THANK YOU.

I'm not all that concerned about the defense and am probably more (the most?) bullish on this team for next year than others. I think PHP brought up a good point, you look at the prior "elite" defenses, teams like Denver, Seattle and Carolina. They gave up 33, 34, and 33 points, respectively, this Sunday. It happens. I don't see any sort of systemic weakness in the defense to cause much concern. They have shown the ability to contain good offenses but with the occasional poor performance. Given the league's push towards favoring the offense, I don't think we'll see any truly dominant defenses anymore. Dominant these days may just be above average in the grand scheme of things.

As for Zimmer "calling out" players, that's the guy's MO. He's a vocal coach that doesn't mince words, how is this surprising to anyone? He throws himself under the bus as much as if not more than individual players. I have no problem with him saying publicly that someone isn't giving 100% if he feels that's the case. Football is a sport where players need to be tough not just physically but also mentally.

This season was wrought with extraordinary circumstance. You starting QB going down for the season on a non-contact drill, your entire offensive line getting injured, your MVP player getting carted off, and your HC himself going down to injury is not the norm. If the offense could just score 21 points per game, that's four extra wins, and 11-12 wins for the season.

Given the injuries and coaching turnover, is it unrealistic to think this team can't put together a 3-TD per game offense? The integral parts of the defense are staying the same so this is really the main x-factor. I'm optimistic they can get it done.

mansquatch wrote:You mis-understood me. I think giving the reigns to Turner is minor in comparison to the decision to hire Turner. No coach can manage all three phases. He needs to be involved, but he cannot manage it all.

It's quite literally his job to manage it all. That's why he's the head coach. The staff works for him and it's up to him to manage both staff and players effectively.

It makes sense for a coach with Zimmer's background and expertise to not micro offense. (As an aside, Nick Saban lets Lane Kiffen run his offense and then (famously) chews him out when it sucks. So this approach can work at a high level.) So given that set of circumstances I think the decision to hire Turner is a much bigger mistake than the decision to give Turner the reigns. Your stats on Turner's NFL career support this point. It made sense to give him control.

We're experiencing a disconnect here and I'm not sure where. I think it made sense to hire a qualified coordinator and give him a certain amount authority but there's a difference between delegating authority and allowing complete autonomy. I think the head coach still has to provide direction. It's his job to bring the elements of the team together into a cohesive whole, with each unit complementing the other. I'm not talking about micro-managing, just management.

I don't think hiring Turner was the mistake. Giving him too much autonomy seems a more likely error to me and I suspect the greater failing has been somewhere in the overall vision for the team, in Zimmer's management style and in the approach he and Spielman have taken to building the roster. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the lack of offensive production begins too.

S197 wrote:I'm not all that concerned about the defense and am probably more (the most?) bullish on this team for next year than others. I think PHP brought up a good point, you look at the prior "elite" defenses, teams like Denver, Seattle and Carolina. They gave up 33, 34, and 33 points, respectively, this Sunday. It happens. I don't see any sort of systemic weakness in the defense to cause much concern. They have shown the ability to contain good offenses but with the occasional poor performance. Given the league's push towards favoring the offense, I don't think we'll see any truly dominant defenses anymore. Dominant these days may just be above average in the grand scheme of things.

That seems an strange conclusion to draw when the Seahawks fielded a dominant defense just a few years ago, in 2013. I don't think the league has changed that much in 3 seasons.

As for Zimmer "calling out" players, that's the guy's MO. He's a vocal coach that doesn't mince words, how is this surprising to anyone? He throws himself under the bus as much as if not more than individual players. I have no problem with him saying publicly that someone isn't giving 100% if he feels that's the case. Football is a sport where players need to be tough not just physically but also mentally.

It's not surprising, just unwise unless it's on a very infrequent basis.

This season was wrought with extraordinary circumstance. You starting QB going down for the season on a non-contact drill, your entire offensive line getting injured, your MVP player getting carted off, and your HC himself going down to injury is not the norm. If the offense could just score 21 points per game, that's four extra wins, and 11-12 wins for the season.

Given the injuries and coaching turnover, is it unrealistic to think this team can't put together a 3-TD per game offense?

Considering what we've seen over the past 3 seasons, it might be unrealistic.

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.

Mothman wrote:That seems an strange conclusion to draw when the Seahawks fielded a dominant defense just a few years ago, in 2013. I don't think the league has changed that much in 3 seasons.

Not the rules per se but there's been a shift towards stricter enforcement. Illegal contact, as an example. I don't think it's coincidence that we don't have a dominant defense this year and the good defenses around the league have trended downwards.

It's not surprising, just unwise unless it's on a very infrequent basis.

I'm of the opinion that the frequency to which it has been used it acceptable.

Considering what we've seen over the past 3 seasons, it might be unrealistic.

They were able to score 20 or more points in 12 games last year so I'm cautiously optimistic.

S197 wrote: Not the rules per se but there's been a shift towards stricter enforcement. Illegal contact, as an example. I don't think it's coincidence that we don't have a dominant defense this year and the good defenses around the league have trended downwards.

Good point. I hadn't thought about the stricter enforcement but perhaps that's just one offensive advantage too many for a defense to be truly dominant over the course of a season again. I guess time will tell.

I'm of the opinion that the frequency to which it has been used it acceptable.

I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another but I think it's risky. It could foster resentment among players. To some extent that probably just depends on what he says and how the particular player/players involved take it.

They were able to score 20 or more points in 12 games last year so I'm cautiously optimistic.

I guess I'm pessimistic because the offense scored 32 TDs in 17 games last season, an average of just under 2 per game. The offense is averaging just 1.6 TDs per game this year and they averaged about 1.8 per game in 2014 so I'm not that optimistic about their ability to get up to a 3 TD per game average next year. I'd love to see it happen though. It would represent a significant step forward on offense.

chicagopurple wrote: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.

Clemmings wouldn't have been a starter. Living in a day dream. Yeah because we have so many gaping holes on this team

Jordysghost wrote: Every rash of injuries every team has ever went through forced then to adjust their unit, that is the point.

Teams usually don't have to adjust their entire passing game which we had to do. Name me another team in the NFL that had to go from a Norv Turner downfield offense to quick steps and check downs because their line is so bad.

Mothman wrote:

I hope the Wilfs are devoting a lot of thought and attention to what's going on with their team.

I doubt it. The Wilfs are some of the least-aggressive owners in the NFL in terms of making their own choices. They will continue to differ all football decisions to Rick Spielman.

I don't expect much change around here until Spielman is gone (which won't be happening this offseason).

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Teams usually don't have to adjust their entire passing game which we had to do. Name me another team in the NFL that had to go from a Norv Turner downfield offense to quick steps and check downs because their line is so bad.

Norvs O was always terribly unsuited for the Vikings, but typically when team have injuries on O line, going to short step drops and quick passes is the adjustment.

Jordysghost wrote:
Norvs O was always terribly unsuited for the Vikings, but typically when team have injuries on O line, going to short step drops and quick passes is the adjustment.

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

Purple Reign wrote: The number of times you've responded to Jordy since the above post proves otherwise. It's getting a little old rehasing the same points.

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.

Fran the Man wrote: 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.

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.