Vikings Message Board.Com

VikingLord wrote:The inherent problems the Vikings have right now:

- A head coach who thinks running and stopping the run should be a major priority

I think misplaced focus holds the team back and results in resources being mis-allocated as a result. The result of this type of error is cumulative - the longer it remains, the larger the effect and the longer it takes to recover from it.

VikingLord wrote: - A management structure that still lacks key components necessary to clear accountability for actions taken (or not taken)

Well, ownership retains the right to hire and fire the head coach, and as far as we know ownership made no effort to determine if someone other than Spielman was a better fit at GM. If the team struggles again this year, who is at fault? That's still not clear IMHO. I guess we can always keep blaming Chilly, though.

VikingLord wrote: - An ownership team that continues to make key decisions about coaches and GM without seriously entertaining alternatives

I think you're rationalizing it. By saying we don't know if it will be successful because we haven't seen the results of it, that ignores the fact that almost no other teams have successfully employed it. You say it's not uncommon in the NFL? Who else has a similar structure and has enjoyed success with it? What other teams have owners who hire and fire head coaches and a GM that does not have that power? Maybe there are a bunch of success stories with it. But I'd say this is the Wilfs still doing it their way. It is better than it was, but still not what it should be.

VikingLord wrote: - Draft failures and ill-advised trades in recent years that have left the team with serious shortages of talent almost across-the-board

And *all* of the people involved in that mess save Childress are *still* involved at pretty much the same level they were before.

VikingLord wrote:Should the Vikes finish last again this year, that would be the first time in their 50+ year history of such a stretch of futility, and a pretty good indicator that the problems they face go far deeper than can be fixed by the passage of time alone.

What would another 3-13, 4-12 finish tell you? What if by the end of this season nothing is materially better? At what point are the facts that the organization suffers from inherent dysfunction going to be acknowledged?

S197 wrote: I think that sells Robinson a little short. He was a 3rd round pick but a very high 3rd round pick, practically a 2nd rounder if you consider the Vikings draft position and the lost pick by the Saints. Agree wholeheartedly on the second sentence.

I wasn't trying to sell him short. I'm sorry if it came off that way. As I said, he's a talent but he's making a transition to a league where the overall talent level is much higher than it was when he was playing at UCF. To put it another way, he's a promising corner coming out of Conference USA, not the SEC. That tempers my expectations but it definitely doesn't mean he can't succeed.

You're right, a team can't build a secondary on 1st and 2nd round picks. Johnson has already been mentioned but I think you should be able to find good players in the 3rd round and the Vikings have missed a lot there too. McCauley never lived up to expectations and Asher Allen struggled in coverage. Hopefully Robinson isn't strike three. I think taking this year into account, the Vikings have made a rather significant investment in their secondary over the last few years, multiple picks in the first 3 rounds. It's the return on investment part that really hasn't panned out. I don't expect Smith or Robinson to be without growing pains, but we simply can't have this much investment in a secondary and continue to play musical chairs.

I agree. However, what they might need to do is invest another high pick (perhaps even a first rounder) in an "anchor" corner for the secondary. I still have hopes for Cook to become a quality starting corner. If that happens and if Robinson or one of the other young corners can become a good third CB, adding that first round quality "anchor" could really lift the quality of the whole unit and make it solid from top to bottom.

Purple bruise wrote:One tenth of the salary cap for, at the time, the BEST player in the NFL and the whole face of the franchise. Having to cut fat #### lazy good for nothing Mckennie (who has been replaced by an outstanding young talent that in all probability will be an all-pro left tackle for years to come) , what a huge loss that was . A newly appointed general manager that is not handcuffed by the triangle of authority, who had a top notch draft and acquired a bonified starters in Kalil and Smith (plus four other picks that will contribute this year and quite possible the #1 receiver in Simpson that they so desperately need. As for the owner what owner does not "hand pick" his head coach Thanks to Zygi this team is staying in Minny for the next 20 years. His efforts, in that capacity has saved OUR team from leaving the state.
For God sakes this team is in a rebuilding mode and that has clearly been defined but some people do not want to give the coach, QB or system a fair chance to succeed.
If the Vikes beat Jacksonville tomorrow then it will be because Jacksonville sucks, if the Vikes lose then they suck. It is a no win situation but I have faith in the team that I follow and root for no matter what.

It's not the player that I take issue with - it's the value of the position. Tell me which of the recent Superbowl teams made it there on the back of a RB. The Vikes are a team that isn't even close to the Superbowl, and yet they are investing a sizable chunk of their future player purchasing power in a *position* that has not correlated at all with recent Superbowl success. That's the definition of a misallocation of resources.

As for cutting McKinnie, you can look at it your way and many would agree with that. I'd look at it as a salary-cap move necessitated by the moves Demi referred to, and a move that basically doomed whomever was going to play QB last season to more pressure than they otherwise would have gotten with McKinnie. Let's not forget that just a season (or two?) prior to last year this same management group *extended* McKinnie's contract. If he was so obviously worthless, who is at fault for missing that fact?

Look, Zygi as a provider of capital has been an incredible owner. He's the anti-McCombs. When the Vikes needed cash for players, he's been there. I give him a lot of credit for his resolve in finding a stadium solution in Minnesota. But my admiration for the Wilfs stops there. They have been terrible when it comes to organizing the team's management structure and selecting that management. They know as much about football as you or I, but they insist on remaining close to the iron. They do deserve criticism for that given the results to this point.

As far as what happens tomorrow, both the Jags and Vikes are two pretty bad teams, so either of them win I don't think anyone will draw far-reaching conclusions from it. What will be more telling is whether the Vikes finish 0-against-the-division again this season, and whether they are again drafting in the top 10.

VikingLord wrote:It's not the player that I take issue with - it's the value of the position. Tell me which of the recent Superbowl teams made it there on the back of a RB. The Vikes are a team that isn't even close to the Superbowl, and yet they are investing a sizable chunk of their future player purchasing power in a *position* that has not correlated at all with recent Superbowl success. That's the definition of a misallocation of resources.

I'd agree with you if the Vikings had Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to spend the $ on. They don't and viable worthy alternatives aren't available. So, for me, I want them to extend the contract of the player that gives them the best chance to win. Before his injury, that was unquestionably Adrian Peterson. The alternative is letting our best playmaker walk in the prime of his career and weakening the position of greatest strength. If their cap situation was in extreme turmoil (a la Steelers this year) I could say the argument has more merit but you still try to extend the arguably top-10 player in the league that does provide quite a bit of influence in the outcome of games due to his talent.

I also agree that it's an issue if it prohibits signing other key players. I've seen no evidence to suggest his contract is that detrimental.

VikingLord wrote: It's not the player that I take issue with - it's the value of the position. Tell me which of the recent Superbowl teams made it there on the back of a RB. The Vikes are a team that isn't even close to the Superbowl, and yet they are investing a sizable chunk of their future player purchasing power in a *position* that has not correlated at all with recent Superbowl success. That's the definition of a misallocation of resources.

As for cutting McKinnie, you can look at it your way and many would agree with that. I'd look at it as a salary-cap move necessitated by the moves Demi referred to, and a move that basically doomed whomever was going to play QB last season to more pressure than they otherwise would have gotten with McKinnie. Let's not forget that just a season (or two?) prior to last year this same management group *extended* McKinnie's contract. If he was so obviously worthless, who is at fault for missing that fact?

Look, Zygi as a provider of capital has been an incredible owner. He's the anti-McCombs. When the Vikes needed cash for players, he's been there. I give him a lot of credit for his resolve in finding a stadium solution in Minnesota. But my admiration for the Wilfs stops there. They have been terrible when it comes to organizing the team's management structure and selecting that management. They know as much about football as you or I, but they insist on remaining close to the iron. They do deserve criticism for that given the results to this point.

As far as what happens tomorrow, both the Jags and Vikes are two pretty bad teams, so either of them win I don't think anyone will draw far-reaching conclusions from it. What will be more telling is whether the Vikes finish 0-against-the-division again this season, and whether they are again drafting in the top 10.

I see some of your points but... you are intimating that the cap space spent on AP should have been better used to acquire a player at a more important position to the team, maybe a QB like the last several Super Bowl winners have had and if so what QB? Did you want Kolb? What was available? AP, as I mentioned was , is the face of this team and there wasn't an option at QB that I am aware of especially if they would have not resigned him to use said money to bring in a QB (again what QB)? They secured AP and then spent a first round pick on a young tallented franchise QB in Ponder and yeah we will all see how that plays out.
The Mckinnie release, to me anyway, was a no brainer. He seemed as if he played harder and tried until he got his money then He came in fat and out of shape with his usual have assed attempt to live up to his reputation. He nearly got Favre killed on several occassions the last year he played. He did take up valuable cap space that after his leaving helped the Vike's sign the "franchise".
Maybe just maybe the organization at that time saw an old former Pro Bowl QB almost take them to the Super Bowl and thought that another former old All Pro QB, Mcnabb might be able to do the same thing. Much of the team was in place. 20/20 hindsight is a marvelous thing.

VikingLord wrote:I think misplaced focus holds the team back and results in resources being mis-allocated as a result. The result of this type of error is cumulative - the longer it remains, the larger the effect and the longer it takes to recover from it.

It sounds like you're suggesting they would have been better off not re-signing Peterson since you consider his contract a mis-allocation of resources. Where should those resources have been allocated? It's easy to talk about the NFL being a passing league and the importance of investing in the QB position if the team wants to win the Super Bowl but that's putting the cart before the horse. A team needs a QB worthy of a blockbuster contract before they can allocate substantial resources to him and they need a QB capable of running an offense that heavily emphasizes the pass before they can run that kind of offense. QBs like that are usually drafted and developed and that's what the Vikings are trying to do. However, it doesn't make much sense to bring in a rookie (or a developing second year QB) and ask him to put the offense on his shoulders. It doesn't make sense to run a pass happy attack without a string receiving corps. The Vikings have one of the best players in the league in Peterson and they would have been foolish not to keep him and fools not to use him. A good running game takes pressure off a young QB and can help his development into a future Super Bowl winner. It's an asset, not a detriment.

Well, ownership retains the right to hire and fire the head coach...

Without knowing the dynamics of how such a decision would be made, we can't possibly determine whether that's a problem. They may just be retaining final say on a recommendation from their GM or they might want to make themselves an integral part of the process. That's not a rationalization, it's simply an acknowledgment of ignorance. I don't know how the actual hiring and firing process will work if it comes to that so I'm unwilling to simply assume it will be a problem.

... and as far as we know ownership made no effort to determine if someone other than Spielman was a better fit at GM. If the team struggles again this year, who is at fault? That's still not clear IMHO. I guess we can always keep blaming Chilly, though.

Childress isn't simply a scapegoat. The decisions made (from 2006-2010 had a huge impact on what followed and that impact is still being felt. As for who will be at fault if the Vikes struggle this season (and they almost certainly will)... how is that unclear? Spielman's in charge of the football operation. Frazier is the coach. Ownership put them in place. If you need someone to blame other than the players actually playing the games, there they are: the coach and GM and ownership... just like on so many other NFL teams.

I think you're rationalizing it. By saying we don't know if it will be successful because we haven't seen the results of it, that ignores the fact that almost no other teams have successfully employed it. You say it's not uncommon in the NFL?

I was talking about promoting a coach from within the organization. Childress was a hasty hire and the only coach interviewed but Frazier is a coach the owners and Personnel Director worked with for years. He was promoted from within the organization. Those are two very different scenarios and NFL teams have had success doing the latter. The most notable example would be the 49ers promoting Siefert to head coach after Walsh retired.

And *all* of the people involved in that mess save Childress are *still* involved at pretty much the same level they were before.

Yes, and that could be a problem but we don't know yet. Those same people have also acknowledged that mistakes were made during that period and have made changes in response to those mistakes.

What would another 3-13, 4-12 finish tell you? What if by the end of this season nothing is materially better? At what point are the facts that the organization suffers from inherent dysfunction going to be acknowledged?

Perhaps when they are clearly facts? Let's see what happens and if they end up 3-13 or 4-12, we can look at how it happened and revisit the subject. Maybe they will be much better than that and instead of worrying about who to blame you can be encouraged by the team's visible improvement. What's the point in pre-determining blame for a W/L record that doesn't exist yet? Why so much focus on who is at fault and who can be blamed when the season hasn't even begun? The Vikings have made some very significant changes in the past two years. I think we need to give them time to take hold. There will be plenty of time to play the blame game down the road.

I go back to Fran.

As usual, the guy offers no facts.

Apparently we're supposed to believe every word he says because he is, by far, the greatest Viking to ever live.

If you doubt that, just ask him.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:I go back to Fran.

As usual, the guy offers no facts.

Apparently we're supposed to believe every word he says because he is, by far, the greatest Viking to ever live.

If you doubt that, just ask him.

Well said. Fran was fine while he was playing. He's been a huge gaping A-HOLE ever since he retired. I wish he'd just go away. And never come back.

Francis is no analyst. He needs to make more infomercials.

LOL there must have been some lag Hibbing while you were posting.

Heck Fran's a homer that is optimistic. He may even be ThatGuy. I wish ThatGuy would come back. His rays of optimism helped squelch my pessimistic demons.

I had no problem with Fran's 4 minutes of optimism in that PP video. I didn't see him being an a** and I doubt they were paying him to give us 4 minutes of facts (although I'm guessing they did pay him). He was simply being optimistic and giving his view of the team and the division. It's a serious stretch to say the Vikings will finish second "at worst" but even that's not impossible. The other teams in the NFCN aren't without question marks. I think the Vikes are probably a 5 win team but I was looking over their schedule again this morning and if they have one of those fortunate seasons where just about everything goes right, they really could finish 2nd in the division and perhaps even compete for a playoff spot. I don't expect that but there are a number of opponents on their schedule that I certainly don't think will be unbeatable juggernauts: Jacksonville, Indy, Seattle, Arizona, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Washington... none of those teams look so good on paper that I'd completely write off the Vikings chances to beat them. The Vikes lost close games against each of their divisional opponents last year too so it's not impossible for them to pull off an upset or two against them this year. Maybe we'll be lucky and Fran's prediction will look prescient in January.

Mothman wrote:I had no problem with Fran's 4 minutes of optimism in that PP video. I didn't see him being an a** and I doubt they were paying him to give us 4 minutes of facts (although I'm guessing they did pay him).

He may not have been an a$$ here, but his body of work since retiring suggests flaming a$$dom.

It's sad for me. I'd prefer to remember him for the way he played. Unfortunately, every time he opens his mouth, the memory fades a little more.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:It's sad for me. I'd prefer to remember him for the way he played. Unfortunately, every time he opens his mouth, the memory fades a little more.

I guess I'm fortunate that I haven't seen or heard him much over the years. When I have, he's been opinionated but (for the most part) not obnoxious. I'm guessing he's on the air and in the media more often in Minnesota than he is around here so you've probably heard a lot more from him over the years.

Knoxx wrote:LOL there must have been some lag Hibbing while you were posting.

Heck Fran's a homer that is optimistic. He may even be ThatGuy. I wish ThatGuy would come back. His rays of optimism helped squelch my pessimistic demons.

yup. not sure what happened.

dead_poet wrote: I'd agree with you if the Vikings had Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to spend the $ on. They don't and viable worthy alternatives aren't available. So, for me, I want them to extend the contract of the player that gives them the best chance to win. Before his injury, that was unquestionably Adrian Peterson. The alternative is letting our best playmaker walk in the prime of his career and weakening the position of greatest strength. If their cap situation was in extreme turmoil (a la Steelers this year) I could say the argument has more merit but you still try to extend the arguably top-10 player in the league that does provide quite a bit of influence in the outcome of games due to his talent.

I also agree that it's an issue if it prohibits signing other key players. I've seen no evidence to suggest his contract is that detrimental.

The only question is, what was AD's real worth when they extended him? With many positions, letting star players hit FA is a bad idea because the market for them is clear, but what exactly is the market for star RBs? I've seen plenty of examples of very talented RB's holding out and the team they are holding out from doesn't seem too eager to break. Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, MJD... Lot's of very talented guys who don't seem to have a ton of leverage when it comes to their own teams. And I can't think of the last star RB who inked a huge FA deal. So it seems that for the teams that choose to retain the "star" RB, that's where the big money deals are coming from, not necessarily from competition within the FA market or even trades that would suggest a value.

So the Vikes inked AD to a pretty big deal, but where is the evidence he would have gotten anything near that from a team other than the Vikings?

I don't know - but from where I sit I see the RB position as incredibly de-valued at this point. There are many successful teams that don't even have a clear starter at the position. Does that mean that AD wouldn't have gotten a huge offer from another team if he hit FA? Maybe he would have, but at least then the Vikings would have known what the market is and still could have beat the offer.