2014 Current and Potential Coaches

[PurpleKoolaid]

Fraizer has been here 3 friggin years. Do you enjoy punishment? Because most Viking fans I know don't. They want to be feared. And they want us to be in the playoff run, not the cellar, again. You must have loved Childress.

[S197]

I confess, I find this one of the more frustrating subjects on the board these days, maybe because I seem to disagree with just about everyone about it. It seems like there's a "familiarity breeds contempt" dynamic at work with some of these player scenarios, where people are inclined to like newer players because they're fresh faces replacing players who have been frustrating to watch. In cases where first or second year players have shown improvement or they've looked well-prepared and delivered when called upon, I think the coaching staff deserves at least some credit, not just criticism. A young player might play well in week 11 or 12 but that doesn't necessarily mean they were capable of playing that well in week 1. The mindset seems to be be that if a player does well, the coaches missed something and should have used him sooner but very little consideration seems to be given to the possibility that the coaches taught the players something or actually helped them, even though that's what coaches do for a living.

The bolded section has been my primary argument for quite some time now and is the source of my criticism for Frazier and the rest of their staff, the lack of being able to improve a player as he matures. It cuts both ways and at times you have defended the opposite position, arguing that it is the players themselves who are accountable and that coaching can only do so much. The "lack of talent" debate, so to speak.

We've gone through the laundry list of secondary players, from free agents, to high draft picks, to mid/lower round picks, the list is long and the number of failures is lengthy. I think we may be able to add Chris Cook (a high 2nd round pick) to that ever growing list.

And that's my source of frustration. Why is it that a former secondary coach, turned defensive coordinator, turned head coach cannot field a respectable secondary? I mean, lets forget about top 10 and all of that, we're talking about bottom of the basement at times, NFL record-setting streak for no interceptions type secondary. That's simply not acceptable and represents a failure in scouting, development, and coaching. Aspects that while not solely attributed to the coaching staff, are ones in which they are heavily involved.

If one were to give the coaches credit for improvements in guys like Rhodes and Cole, then shouldn't they also be at partial blame for the failures of Cook, Tyrell Johnson, Madieu Williams, Asher Allen, Marcus McCauley, Sapp, Walker, Griffen, (possibly) Josh Robinson, etc. etc.? My perspective is this, it really doesn't matter which way you choose to look at it because it will reflect badly no matter what. If it's a talent issue, then what's the point of having coaches, pay me the minimum and I'll go out there. If it's a coaching/development issue, then kudos for the improvements but for every one player that improves, I can probably name five that have regressed.

I simply don't see it as worth the effort to applaud a coaching staff for what I view, as a whole body of work, as sub-par (to put it kindly). That doesn't mean it's all bad, I think Frazier and the other coaches certainly have their strong points, but even a person who gets an "F" on a test doesn't necessarily mean they answered every question wrong. An "F" is an "F", I'm not going to congratulate someone on getting 40 questions right when they got 60 questions wrong, and I'm not going to praise a coaching staff for similar successes when the overall work is unacceptable.

[Mothman]

I'll try to break down the argument (that I support anyway) and make it more clear. I'm not saying it will convert you or even change your opinion at all, it's just how I see it.

I agree that Cole in week 1 or whoever you want to put in there, might not have been as good as the starter in front of him from day 1 this season, there's simply no way to know so it can't favor either argument. The thing that I find really questionable though, is that at some point, I think we can agree, a couple of these guys seem to have surpassed the starters. Like you, I don't know WHEN it happened, but I think it's safe to say it DID happen, hopefully you're with me so far. The problem as I see it, is that the coaches weren't able to analyze / evaluate the positional battles (henderson, cole, etc) on their own to determine Cole should get the nod at MLB. They essentially "lucked" into it when Henderson forced them to play Cole with his legal trouble.

The problem I have with that take is the underlying assumption that it was somehow apparent in practices that Cole was better than Henderson. We don't know how Cole looked in practice, what his command of the defense was, how it may have evolved over the season, etc. We don't know if being waived briefly lit a fire under him and if he played much better after that or if he just surprised everyone by being the type of player who looks a lot different on game day than in practice (and we've all heard of players like that). There's so much we don't know. What we do know is that Cole didn't look as good in the preseason. He was a 7th round pick in 2012 who has developed into at least a decent starter and it seems to me the coaches probably deserve some credit for that, which leads to...

I do think they should get some kudos for developing those younger or more raw players, but for me the way it's all happened makes me think more negatively about the decision makers. If they had come out in week 12 and said "You know we've been seeing Cole do some good things and ultimately we've decided to give him the nod at MLB and move Henderson back to the weak side" I would have nothing but good things to say about it. As it is, I feel like every single move that's been made, hasn't been an actual thought based decision by Frazier, but some other force contributed to the change. (injury, ejection, legal troubles, etc)

I understand that but I think some of it (like getting Patterson more involved) has clearly been part of the plan all along.

Sometimes luck is involved these things. Tom Brady might not have seen the field and helped the Patriots win their first Super Bowl if Bledsoe hadn't been injured. Ditto for Kurt Warner, who took over when Trent Green was lost to injury. I doubt Belichick or Vermeil knew just how good those two QBs were going to become but they probably knew they had something in them. I suspect the same is true for some of the young Vikings players. Cole wouldn't have stuck on the roster if Frazier didn't see something in him. Mark Craig of the Star Tribune said the same thing when asked about it.

Most of the time I feel the coaches are just content to go with what they got and let it play out, ride the wave if you will. But some times it's the wave of ineptitude and I guess what I'm looking for is if josh robinson is the most targeted / completed on CB in the league (at one point it got as bad as 93% completion rate) you gotta at least try sherels or someone else on the roster at nickel. If Ponder is not winning games and not able to run the offense like Cassel can than at some point you gotta put Cassel in.

I agree but if I recall correctly, they started working Sherels in at nickel before Robinson went down for the season and Robinson was improving before he was injured so sticking with him looked like it was starting to pay off. They gradually worked Bishop into the lineup and he had replaced Mitchell as the starter before he was lost to injury. Cassel is now starting even though Ponder is healthy. As I've said before when discussing this subject, it seems like the main argument is that Frazier isn't operating on the timetable fans want to see. There's a case to be made for that but there's also a case to be made for letting players work through problems, learn on the job, etc., which is something fans also tend to demand. For every fan who has complained about Robinson being kept in the lineup this year, there's probably a fan who has complained that Mauti isn't in the lineup.

I'm just scared we might lose games because the coaches are just so willing to sit on their hands and be content. Obviously it's not going to matter much this year, but what about next year? In some ways it's beneficial to let a guy develop on the job but when it doesn't work out, we're talking about losses and if you wait 2 games too long you might go from 10-6 and a playoff spot to 8-8 and miss out.

That's a fair point but when you've been tasked with coaching a team that is rebuilding, doesn't that seem like the time to be patient and let players develop on the job? If not then, when? I don't think anyone was laboring under the delusion that this was going to be a Super Bowl team this season so if the Vikings were taking the longer view and developing toward a goal of being able to win it all in a year or two, a willingness to take their lumps this year makes some sense. I'm sure they were still trying to win games and make the playoffs but Spielman has made it crystal clear that this is a rebuilding team that wants to draft and develop it's own players. That means taking some of those lumps and showing some patience.

As for how much better these guys are, probably only a little bit.

Bingo! In some cases, even that is debatable.

As you can tell, I'm not a convert but I do appreciate you breaking down your views on this so well. I don't even think we're that far apart on it.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Because Jim, some coaches can see talent. And some think if you play them enough, that will make them better. Even if they show little or no improvement. He is just to ultra conservative in things. Bishop should have been starting the season too. IMO as MIKE. Most everyone I talked to though this. Fraizer is not at all good with developing talent, or knowing when to use it. For most HC's, that combination should result in a pink slip.

[Mothman]

The bolded section has been my primary argument for quite some time now and is the source of my criticism for Frazier and the rest of their staff, the lack of being able to improve a player as he matures. It cuts both ways and at times you have defended the opposite position, arguing that it is the players themselves who are accountable and that coaching can only do so much. The "lack of talent" debate, so to speak.

I don't think that's really the opposite position. Coaches teach, players learn. Some players are going to respond to coaching and improve and others won't. No coach is going to have a 100% success rate in that department and talent, desire, work ethic, etc. will always factor into the equation. I maintain the same position on this subject whether we're talking about successes or failures. The primary responsibility for a player's performance, development, etc. lies with the player, not the coach, just as the primary responsibility for a student's grades lies with the student, not the teacher. However, coaches and teachers have a role to play and share some responsibility in the outcome. It's just secondary to that of the player/student.

Regarding this idea of applauding/praising the coaches... I'm not suggesting everyone should be looking at a player like Cole and saying, "Wow, that Leslie Frazier sure is a great coach. Look at the fantastic job he and his staff did with this kid" but any positive contribution the coaches might have made to Cole's development doesn't even seem to be a consideration for many fans. Instead, ever since he played against GB at Lambeau, he's been used as a tool to hammer away at the coaching staff week after week because people assume they missed out on this good player that was right under their noses...
... and what makes it particularly frustrating is that Coles really isn't that good.

All I'm saying is maybe there's a more accurate, balanced view between those two extremes.

[saint33]

Because Jim, some coaches can see talent. And some think if you play them enough, that will make them better. Even if they show little or no improvement. He is just to ultra conservative in things. Bishop should have been starting the season too. IMO as MIKE. Most everyone I talked to though this. Fraizer is not at all good with developing talent, or knowing when to use it. For most HC's, that combination should result in a pink slip.

I disagree that he hasn't developed talent. Everyone can argue til the cows come home about when he should or shouldn't have infused the youth into the starting lineup, but I don't know how you can deny that young players have developed on this team. Some rather quickly.

Harrison Smith, Fusco, Rhodes, Patterson, Wright, Floyd, Cole, Sherels, Griffen, and Sendejo are all young players who have improved significantly in their time with the team. Really the only major players who haven't developed as expected are Ponder, who appears to be one of those players who simply doesn't get it and Matt Kalil, who appears to have gotten worse the longer he's been with the team.

[S197]

I don't think that's really the opposite position. Coaches teach, players learn. Some players are going to respond to coaching and improve and others won't. No coach is going to have a 100% success rate in that department and talent, desire, work ethic, etc. will always factor into the equation. I maintain the same position on this subject whether we're talking about successes or failures. The primary responsibility for a player's performance, development, etc. lies with the player, not the coach, just as the primary responsibility for a student's grades lies with the student, not the teacher. However, coaches and teachers have a role to play and share some responsibility in the outcome. It's just secondary to that of the player/student.

I suppose this fundamental is where you and I differ. I subscribe to the Mr. Miyagi school of thought, "No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do."

I hear what you're saying though, and I agree there is an interplay between the two that needs to work synergistically in order for there to be success.

Regarding this idea of applauding/praising the coaches... I'm not suggesting everyone should be looking at a player like Cole and saying, "Wow, that Leslie Frazier sure is a great coach. Look at the fantastic job he and his staff did with this kid" but any positive contribution the coaches might have made to Cole's development doesn't even seem to be a consideration for many fans. Instead, ever since he played against GB at Lambeau, he's been used as a tool to hammer away at the coaching staff week after week because people assume they missed out on this good player that was right under their noses...
... and what makes it particularly frustrating is that Coles really isn't that good.

To be honest, I don't think he's all that good either. I think the frustration stems from many fans (and media) questioning why guys like Rhodes, Patterson, and Cassel were not placed on the field earlier or given an increased amount of reps. I think in some cases, things can be looked at as fans using 20/20 hindsight but I don't think that's the case in these particular situations. If you go back to the early game threads or the "fix the offense/defense" threads, many people were saying these key personnel changes needed to happen. Perhaps they weren't ready at those particular times in the season, but then we're delving deep into the realm of speculation where anyone's guess is as good as anothers.

I think the hindsight case can be used for a guy like Cole because other than the two interceptions in preseason the prior year, I don't recall him doing much. In fact, I recall a lot of fans saying how badly he looked in preseason and that Mauti should start ahead of him. So I agree with you here in that in some cases some of the venom spewed towards Frazier is unwarranted or at least over the top, but not all.

All I'm saying is maybe there's a more accurate, balanced view between those two extremes.

Definitely. I suppose from my point of view, it's always been a matter of where to start in terms of cleaning up this mess. Spielman by most accounts seems to be safe so the next guy on the totem pole is Frazier, which is why I direct most of my criticism towards him. There's certainly an amount of blame that needs to be doled out to the players, but I think that it's incredibly difficult to assess that when the management is dysfunctional. That is admittedly a very concentrated and perhaps unbalanced way of looking at things, but we can't overhaul the entire roster in a single season. We can overhaul the coaching so I suppose, at least for me, that's why I put forth the effort towards what I think can and will change.

[PurpleKoolaid]

I disagree that he hasn't developed talent. Everyone can argue til the cows come home about when he should or shouldn't have infused the youth into the starting lineup, but I don't know how you can deny that young players have developed on this team. Some rather quickly.

Harrison Smith, Fusco, Rhodes, Patterson, Wright, Floyd, Cole, Sherels, Griffen, and Sendejo are all young players who have improved significantly in their time with the team. Really the only major players who haven't developed as expected are Ponder, who appears to be one of those players who simply doesn't get it and Matt Kalil, who appears to have gotten worse the longer he's been with the team.

So you are in the camp of keeping Fraizer. Look at all the talent he personally developed. Or did have help from the other coaches, like Williams? Is that why we have won all of 4 games so far. Childress must be a god to you, developing AD.

[Eli]

Harrison Smith, Fusco, Rhodes, Patterson, Wright, Floyd, Cole, Sherels, Griffen, and Sendejo are all young players who have improved significantly in their time with the team.

I don't see it in many of the players you cite, particularly Harrison Smith. I see mostly players who were given additional playing time and opportunity, a lot of it only out of necessity.

I suppose you could make arguments for Fusco, Sherels and Sandejo. Griffen has played consistently since his sophomore year, but has been jerked around a little by being played in different positions and behind de facto starters. Jarius Wright started his career as a #4 WR with a little upside and he's still a #4.

I see no difference in Floyd. He's made one or two good plays every game, but otherwise has been invisible pretty much all year. Was Rhodes' limited play early in the season that much worse than in recent weeks? Yes, he's defended some passes recently, but that's hard to do when you're not on the field. Was he being burned earlier while playing behind Robinson? Fans were screaming to get him on the field since week one. Did Patterson stink it up, only to become a better WR? He looks like exactly the same guy to me. His improvement has been in learning a pro offense, which makes him better, but mostly he's been targeted more. He runs routes and catches the ball just like he did in week one.

[S197]

I disagree that he hasn't developed talent. Everyone can argue til the cows come home about when he should or shouldn't have infused the youth into the starting lineup, but I don't know how you can deny that young players have developed on this team. Some rather quickly.

Harrison Smith, Fusco, Rhodes, Patterson, Wright, Floyd, Cole, Sherels, Griffen, and Sendejo are all young players who have improved significantly in their time with the team. Really the only major players who haven't developed as expected are Ponder, who appears to be one of those players who simply doesn't get it and Matt Kalil, who appears to have gotten worse the longer he's been with the team.

I don't know that I would agree with everyone on that list, especially those who have yet to even play a full season. I think guys who come in and make an instant impact, your AD's, Percy Harvin's, Harrison Smiths of the world, that's more of a nod to Spielman. These guys came in pretty well polished and started playing at a high level from nearly the beginning.

Fusco, while inconsistent I think is an example of someone who has improved over the years. The same can be said for Brian Robison and John Sullivan.

On the flip side, however, you also have regression from guys like Kalil, Ponder, Loadholt, Henderson, Cook, Robinson, Sanford, Guion, etc. Plus players who were never really that good and still aren't (Charlie Johnson, Mitchell, Raymond, etc.).

What I would like to see more of, are guys who came in and looked poor but noticeably improved over the years. Really the only guy I can think of that fits the bill is Sherels. He looked flat out bad when he came in here but now he looks decent in coverage (in mop up duty) and has turned into a decent punt returner. I honestly can't really think of anyone else. Maybe John Carlson but he wasn't exactly a nobody signing so it's debatable if he's really improved or just finally started to produce at the level he was supposed to.

[Demi]

I think guys who come in and make an instant impact, your AD's, Percy Harvin's, Harrison Smiths of the world

I credit Childress for the great job he did coaching up AD and Harvin. And Frazier for Smith. Without those coaches, who knows where they would have ended up

[Eli]

Maybe John Carlson but he wasn't exactly a nobody signing so it's debatable if he's really improved or just finally started to produce at the level he was supposed to.

No. Not even close. Obviously he was injured most of last year, but he was seldom targeted by Musgrave and Checkdown Charlie only used him as an outlet. Only when Rudolph went down did they begin using him in earnest. That's not the development of a player. Very few sixth year players will be developed by any coaching staff, let alone one who had already had proven early in his career what he could do.

[Pondering Her Percy]

No. Not even close. Obviously he was injured most of last year, but he was seldom targeted by Musgrave and Checkdown Charlie only used him as an outlet. Only when Rudolph went down did they begin using him in earnest. That's not the development of a player. Very few sixth year players will be developed by any coaching staff, let alone one who had already had proven early in his career what he could do.

Exactly. I still think Carlson was payed too much but Musgrave does NOT use him like he should. Not even close. He was nothing but a blocker/check-down option when Rudolph was healthy. Rudolph and Carlson together with an OC that has a brain would be a great tandem.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I agree that Cole in week 1 or whoever you want to put in there, might not have been as good as the starter in front of him from day 1 this season, there's simply no way to know so it can't favor either argument. The thing that I find really questionable though, is that at some point, I think we can agree, a couple of these guys seem to have surpassed the starters. Like you, I don't know WHEN it happened, but I think it's safe to say it DID happen, hopefully you're with me so far. The problem as I see it, is that the coaches weren't able to analyze / evaluate the positional battles (henderson, cole, etc) on their own to determine Cole should get the nod at MLB. They essentially "lucked" into it when Henderson forced them to play Cole with his legal trouble. At other spots it took an injury for a change to happen and one other time even a player got himself EJECTED for the change to occur.

I do think they should get some kudos for developing those younger or more raw players, but for me the way it's all happened makes me think more negatively about the decision makers. If they had come out in week 12 and said "You know we've been seeing Cole do some good things and ultimately we've decided to give him the nod at MLB and move Henderson back to the weak side" I would have nothing but good things to say about it. As it is, I feel like every single move that's been made, hasn't been an actual thought based decision by Frazier, but some other force contributed to the change. (injury, ejection, legal troubles, etc)

Most of the time I feel the coaches are just content to go with what they got and let it play out, ride the wave if you will. But some times it's the wave of ineptitude and I guess what I'm looking for is if josh robinson is the most targeted / completed on CB in the league (at one point it got as bad as 93% completion rate) you gotta at least try sherels or someone else on the roster at nickel. If Ponder is not winning games and not able to run the offense like Cassel can than at some point you gotta put Cassel in.

I'm just scared we might lose games because the coaches are just so willing to sit on their hands and be content. Obviously it's not going to matter much this year, but what about next year? In some ways it's beneficial to let a guy develop on the job but when it doesn't work out, we're talking about losses and if you wait 2 games too long you might go from 10-6 and a playoff spot to 8-8 and miss out.

Let me be clear as well that that isn't the ONLY reason I wouldn't bring Frazier back.

As for how much better these guys are, probably only a little bit. But by now there are significant injuries adding to the problems and that certainly doesn't help either with some of the stats you listed for recent games.

It's also kind of like throwing money at the financial crisis, it helps a bit in the short term but deep down the system is still broken and the under lying problems still need to be fixed and that can't happen until the off season.

Very well put. This is very similar to what I said earlier. I truly believe that if it wasnt for suspensions and injuries, guys like Cole, Prater, Cassel, Patterson, Rhodes, and Carlson would be unheard and/or getting limited snaps still. It makes Frazier look worse and worse and I truly dont think think he has the balls to say..."This player has been playing good for us and we're going to start him instead". You can say Frazier "lucked" out which in a way he did, but also, it's not helping his cause since these guys have been riding the pine for most of the year.

I mean can you imagine what we have in Mauti and/or Hodges??? Cole gets hurt last game and he puts Marvin Mitchell back in the game. You're really going to tell me that Marvin Mitchell is a better LB than Mauti or Hodges. Especially Hodges since that's his position. There is no way. I just cant see it. I mean what do you have to lose??? You have to see what you have in these guys. You already know what you have in Mitchell, he's a below average journeyman that shouldnt be on a football field. I just dont get it.

[mondry]

I understand that but I think some of it (like getting Patterson more involved) has clearly been part of the plan all along.

Sometimes luck is involved these things. Tom Brady might not have seen the field and helped the Patriots win their first Super Bowl if Bledsoe hadn't been injured. Ditto for Kurt Warner, who took over when Trent Green was lost to injury. I doubt Belichick or Vermeil knew just how good those two QBs were going to become but they probably knew they had something in them.

Yeah, I remember the head coach calling it an "over site" not having Patterson on the field more, than the next game he played like 6 snaps instead of 5.

Actually I saw this point coming and expected you to go there. There's nothing to really say about that, it does happen, but does it happen as much as it is for us right now? Hard to say, I don't remember anyone else on those patriot teams lol.