Vikings Message Board.Com

Defensive line not stepping up in the most critical moments. Not so much a scheme issue as a personnel issue - with underperforming lineman at any given moment.

thatguy wrote:Defensive line not stepping up in the most critical moments. Not so much a scheme issue as a personnel issue - with underperforming lineman at any given moment.

Give me a friggin break. They run a prevent D, that fails, with every lead, and then lose. All the time. Look up what that means in the dictionary.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Give me a friggin break. They run a prevent D, that fails, with every lead, and then lose. All the time. Look up what that means in the dictionary.

Look up what in the dictionary? "All the time?"

Please construct your sentences better so that I have a better idea as to what you're talking about.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote:Ponder

That damn Ponder and his meddling!

harvin was more angry at ponder, and it spilled over with anger towards frazier sticking by him. allow me to ask, what has changed? there is no rational reason frazier should be the head coach of this team next year.

When it comes down to it, the Wilfs are ultimately to blame. They have allowed a substandard coaching staff with lame game plans and bad play calling to put in inept players like Ponder, Cook and Robinson. They own the freakin' team, but will do nothing to fix the problem. By allowing this coaching staff to continue playing stupid ball, they are endorsing the loss.

The players, individually, can only do what they're told to the best of their abilities. It's up to the coaches to call it right, with the right personnel doing the right things. It's up to the owners to get rid of a coach or scheme that consistently FAILS.

The captain needs to go down with the ship, and the ultimate captain is the Wilf family.

tnvikesfan wrote:When it comes down to it, the Wilfs are ultimately to blame. They have allowed a substandard coaching staff with lame game plans and bad play calling to put in inept players like Ponder, Cook and Robinson. They own the freakin' team, but will do nothing to fix the problem. By allowing this coaching staff to continue playing stupid ball, they are endorsing the loss.

The players, individually, can only do what they're told to the best of their abilities. It's up to the coaches to call it right, with the right personnel doing the right things. It's up to the owners to get rid of a coach or scheme that consistently FAILS.

The captain needs to go down with the ship, and the ultimate captain is the Wilf family.

I'll counter and claim the Wilfs aren't football people and really don't have a clue about running a football team. They are in it to run it as a business and make money. Just because they own the team doesn't mean they should be the ones to take all the blame. Yes, coaches should be accountable (as well as the players) and if the team continues to lose then there should be a change. It is rarely advantageous to fire coaches mid season. The team did great last year with basically the same personnel. Wait until the end of the year and see what happens with the coaching staff before placing any blame on the Wilfs.

The Wilfs hired this head coach, so they have to accept a fair amount of the blame.

They also hired the GM and past coaches who have made the important personnel decisions leading up to the current roster. To their credit, they have some real gems on this team, but the overall talent level and depth are below average.

Once the Wifs have entrusted the entire football operation to a GM who hires the coaching staff and makes all of the personnel moves, then they can be blamed for only one thing: the hiring of the GM.

Eli wrote:The Wilfs hired this head coach, so they have to accept a fair amount of the blame.

The Vikings went to the playoffs last year with this head coach. So unless they had a crystal ball and knew how bad it would be this year, they weren't going to fire him and hire someone new at the start of this year. Like I said, if they don't make any changes in the off season, then you can blame the Wilfs, but I don't think you can really blame them for this year.

Purple Reign wrote:
The Vikings went to the playoffs last year with this head coach. So unless they had a crystal ball and knew how bad it would be this year, they weren't going to fire him and hire someone new at the start of this year. Like I said, if they don't make any changes in the off season, then you can blame the Wilfs, but I don't think you can really blame them for this year.

... if, indeed, the coach deserves the blame for this year, which I consider debatable. As you said, the Vikings went to the playoffs with Frazier last year and there's at least an argument to be made that better execution on the field late in close games would have this team in first place right now.

There's also an argument to be made that some or all of those losses are due to coaching. Fun!

The difference from being 3-9-1 and being 8-5 is about 5 plays. This team is losing the close games. You can blame whomever you want. But it is still a team game.

thatguy wrote: Look up what in the dictionary? "All the time?"

Please construct your sentences better so that I have a better idea as to what you're talking about.

Ok, I will try and dumb it down a bit. Whats it called when you keep doing the same thing, and expect different results?

PurpleKoolaid wrote: Ok, I will try and dumb it down a bit. Whats it called when you keep doing the same thing, and expect different results?

2013 Minnesota Vikings' game plan!?

MelanieMFunk wrote: 2013 Minnesota Vikings' game plan!?

Raptorman wrote:The difference from being 3-9-1 and being 8-5 is about 5 plays. This team is losing the close games. You can blame whomever you want. But it is still a team game.

I recall how so recently, following 2011's 3-13 season, many fans argued that the Vikings were just a handful of plays away from going 9-7.

And last year you could argue that they were about four plays from being 6-10 instead of 10-6. In fact, you could probably examine most football games won or lost by less than 7 points and make that argument either way.