Vikings Message Board.Com

NextQuestion wrote:According to Sullivan on PA's show today: Cassel checked into the shotgun draw run for a TD by Gerhart. Wasn't a Musgrave call

And I hereby retract my lone 2013 complement of Muskrat.

They showed him smiling on the sidelines after the play. I want that smile retracted too!

Webbfann wrote: And I hereby retract my lone 2013 complement of Muskrat.

They showed him smiling on the sidelines after the play. I want that smile retracted too!

The option to audible to that play was probably in there because Musgrave put it there. As I understand it, that's usually how such things work. A play will have a run/pass option built into it and the QB is supposed to read the defense and make the call at the line of scrimmage.

Mothman wrote: The option to audible to that play was probably in there because Musgrave put it there. As I understand it, that's usually how such things work. A play will have a run/pass option built into it and the QB is supposed to read the defense and make the call at the line of scrimmage.

Lol, anyone who has watched football for 10 plus years could give you a pass and run play, it was on the QB to read the defence and make the right call not Musgrave for picking two plays before he even saw the defence. Plus one for Cassel not Musgrave.

allday1991 wrote:Lol, anyone who has watched football for 10 plus years could give you a pass and run play, it was on the QB to read the defence and make the right call not Musgrave for picking two plays before he even saw the defence. Plus one for Cassel not Musgrave.

Sigh... I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

IMO Frasier not putting the best guy on the field is not because he can't see talent. I think it is because, to paraphrase Jim, he sees potential. This is "probably" a correctable fault. Keep in mind, Frasier was smart enough not to release these backs ups.

The issue is that Frasier seems to wait too long to give some of these other guys a nod. If this were 2009 I think the issue would be far more serious given super bowl ramifications, but it is isn't. I've been on his case about this most of the season, especially on the Robinson front, but in that case Robinson has gotten much better, so in the end Frasier was proven right.

Where I'm torn, is that I think Frasier has done a fantastic job of keeping (and assembling) this locker room together from a mental standpoint. These guys are playing hard every game, not just mailing it in. Go see Washington if you want to see mailing it in.

So I'm rather undecided on this. I see positives and negatives, but given that I think the biggest negative on this team to the Win Loss column is the QB talent, then I question whether or not canning the coach is going to help solve the problem. The bigger question there is what many of the board have asked which is "why do we think Spielman can pick a winner" or IMO, "Is any GM really so smart as to pick the winning QB out of a line up or is it just dumb luck." If it is the latter then Spielman is just like everyone else and you take the lumps. (He seems quite adept at wheeling and dealing, which is a positive.)

I think the "better coordinator" comment is probably a very valid one, Frasier needs to channel some Andy Reid in this respect and hire guys who are better than he is at the Xs and Os and then focus on his strength as a motivator.

mansquatch wrote:I've been on his case about this most of the season, especially on the Robinson front, but in that case Robinson has gotten much better, so in the end Frasier was proven right.

I think this hasn't gotten enough attention on this board actually. As horrible as Robinson was for the first part of the season, his play actually got better, and he was playing pretty respectable football before getting injured. He wasn't a shutdown corner by any means, but I'm certainly not ready to write the kid off as a bust as so many other seem ready to be.

mansquatch wrote:
So I'm rather undecided on this. I see positives and negatives, but given that I think the biggest negative on this team to the Win Loss column is the QB talent, then I question whether or not canning the coach is going to help solve the problem.

Interesting take but I can't agree. I think the defense and play calling (which comes from the coaches) have costs us a vast majority of our losses. The offense and thus QB have had leads in almost ALL of our losses even and yet it's the defense and play calling that can't seal the game.

Does a new QB cause musgrave to not call 2 runs and a pass short of the sticks in crunch time? I can see the argument for it but I just don't know. Does the prevent defense Frazier and Williams rely on at the end of the game get better with a new QB? How about the talent on defense, does that go up with a new qb?

Not trying to say QB isn't an issue but I don't think it solves even HALF our problems. I think what you might think is a great QB could COVER UP our other problems, that I can buy. But I don't see that as a viable way to win the superbowl.

saint33 wrote:
I think this hasn't gotten enough attention on this board actually. As horrible as Robinson was for the first part of the season, his play actually got better, and he was playing pretty respectable football before getting injured. He wasn't a shutdown corner by any means, but I'm certainly not ready to write the kid off as a bust as so many other seem ready to be.

He may have improved but when talking about literally the worst CB in the league based on targets / completion rate it was bound to "even out", law of averages and what not. I don't think he should be written off either, but I'd say his future is cloudy atm at best. The point isn't whether it works out in the end or not, it's that this season and perhaps FUTURE seasons might be thrown down the drain so one or two guys can learn on the job while a better option could be available.

mondry wrote: Interesting take but I can't agree. I think the defense and play calling (which comes from the coaches) have costs us a vast majority of our losses. The offense and thus QB have had leads in almost ALL of our losses even and yet it's the defense and play calling that can't seal the game.

Does a new QB cause musgrave to not call 2 runs and a pass short of the sticks in crunch time? I can see the argument for it but I just don't know. Does the prevent defense Frazier and Williams rely on at the end of the game get better with a new QB? How about the talent on defense, does that go up with a new qb?

Not trying to say QB isn't an issue but I don't think it solves even HALF our problems. I think what you might think is a great QB could COVER UP our other problems, that I can buy. But I don't see that as a viable way to win the superbowl.

At least with a solid QB, we can hang our hat on that. Unlike some think, this D gets better with the right HC and DC. A few players, through the draft or FA, and we are in contention. I don't even care if we keep the nitwit Musgrave (although I hope he goes too). Just get rid of the clowns calling the D plays, the prevent d, and that continually blame the players, instead of themselves. it ISNT about lack of execution every single game in the last quarter. Its a bad scheme, and they continually run them. I keep hoping Mr Wilf will grow a pair and fire the clown already. Put Fraizer's old pal Singletary in for the last few games as HC, then fire him too.

Mondry I cannot disagree, it is just really hard to say coach X is responsible for play calling vs. coach Y. IMO Frasier has merits as a motivator and that is the role of the HC. So is that offset by the X and O or Starter choices? If that is all on Frasier then maybe, but if it is in part the rest of the staff then it begs the question of whom.

That being said, Frasier is the HC and thus he is responsible for the staff selection as well as it's decsions, so ultimately as the leader it is on him.

It is a tough deal. As a manager the question I'd want to answer is if Frasier is the source of the pain or if there is another group or individual who causes the sum of the parts to be 3-9-1. Obviously there is fault to go around, but that doesn't mean firing Frasier is the BEST solution to the problem.

It is worth noting that the above questions will likely never be answered here. That is just how I'd look at it if I was making the decision on who to fire/ who to keep.

mansquatch wrote:IMO Frasier not putting the best guy on the field is not because he can't see talent. I think it is because, to paraphrase Jim, he sees potential. This is "probably" a correctable fault. Keep in mind, Frasier was smart enough not to release these backs ups.

That's a good point and I'm not even convinced what you're talking about is a fault. It seems to me that it basically boils down to Frazier operating on a timetable that differs from what some fans/reporters want to see or, in some cases, Frazier perhaps valuing a more knowledgable or prepared player over a less experienced player. He's managed the talent in a way that differs from what some want to see but I'm not convinced that means he's mismanaged it.

Considering how patient his approach has been, I wonder if he's going to be fired or if he already knows he'll be back next season.

mansquatch wrote:Mondry I cannot disagree, it is just really hard to say coach X is responsible for play calling vs. coach Y. IMO Frasier has merits as a motivator and that is the role of the HC. So is that offset by the X and O or Starter choices? If that is all on Frasier then maybe, but if it is in part the rest of the staff then it begs the question of whom.

That being said, Frasier is the HC and thus he is responsible for the staff selection as well as it's decsions, so ultimately as the leader it is on him.

It is a tough deal. As a manager the question I'd want to answer is if Frasier is the source of the pain or if there is another group or individual who causes the sum of the parts to be 3-9-1. Obviously there is fault to go around, but that doesn't mean firing Frasier is the BEST solution to the problem.

Well said! When you combine that with the the point fiestavike made about continuity, it really should give the team pause if they're thinking about firing Frazier. Keeping the wrong coach too long is obviously bad for a team but you don't win championships or build a consistent contender by changing head coaches all the time like the Browns and Raiders do.

Mothman wrote:
Sigh... I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.

Maybe its a generation gap but your comment definitely seemed to me like you were giving a bit of credit to Musgrave for making sure his QB had two play calls at the line of scrimmage like every other offence coordinator does in the league.

mansquatch wrote:Mondry I cannot disagree, it is just really hard to say coach X is responsible for play calling vs. coach Y. IMO Frasier has merits as a motivator and that is the role of the HC. So is that offset by the X and O or Starter choices? If that is all on Frasier then maybe, but if it is in part the rest of the staff then it begs the question of whom.

That being said, Frasier is the HC and thus he is responsible for the staff selection as well as it's decsions, so ultimately as the leader it is on him.

It is a tough deal. As a manager the question I'd want to answer is if Frasier is the source of the pain or if there is another group or individual who causes the sum of the parts to be 3-9-1. Obviously there is fault to go around, but that doesn't mean firing Frasier is the BEST solution to the problem.

It is worth noting that the above questions will likely never be answered here. That is just how I'd look at it if I was making the decision on who to fire/ who to keep.

I see, well I think the question then is, is it worth keeping a guy around who's really good at 1/3rd of the job (motivator) but maybe not the other 2/3rds? (picking the starters 1/3rd, and his supporting cast / coaches / coordinators 1/3rd)

If Frazier's willing to admit there is a problem and replace musgrave / williams and singeltary and all the other friends he hired then I think it could work. The problem is that seems to VERY RARELY happen in the NFL. Where a coach stays and all of his assistants just get fired. I think that's because the assistants usually believe the same things the head coach does so again, if Frazier is the guy picking assistants, wouldn't it just be more of the same? I don't see him giving up his "stamp" on the team to JUST be the head coach / motivator.

Bottom line, Childress hired Frazier, and YEARS later this team still looks an awful lot like Chili ball or "more of the same". I want a CLEAN SLATE, get entirely away from the conservative, play not to lose Childress coaching tree.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:The same thing happened yesterday with Cassel that happened 4x already with Ponder this year.

So no I don't think Cassel would have made more than a 2 win difference had he started from day 1.

We lost yesterday mainly because of faulty calls, big difference from how we lost the first 3.

mansquatch wrote:IMO Frasier not putting the best guy on the field is not because he can't see talent. I think it is because, to paraphrase Jim, he sees potential. This is "probably" a correctable fault. Keep in mind, Frasier was smart enough not to release these backs ups.

Spielman is in charge of personnel moves. Anyone leaving or staying is his job. Frazier's job is to set the depth chart, which he has done poorly at multiple positions.

The issue is that Frasier seems to wait too long to give some of these other guys a nod. If this were 2009 I think the issue would be far more serious given super bowl ramifications, but it is isn't. I've been on his case about this most of the season, especially on the Robinson front, but in that case Robinson has gotten much better, so in the end Frasier was proven right.

I really don't understand the Robinson love that many fans have suddenly acquired. Maybe I missed it, but what did he do exactly that has made him much better? Keep in mind he was the most targeted corner in the NFL, so going from absolutely terrible to just plain bad isn't much of an improvement in my eyes. Like I said, maybe I missed it, is there anything quantifiable that can show he's gotten "much better?"

Where I'm torn, is that I think Frasier has done a fantastic job of keeping (and assembling) this locker room together from a mental standpoint. These guys are playing hard every game, not just mailing it in. Go see Washington if you want to see mailing it in.

I'm glad to see the effort but these guys are professionals, shouldn't this be expected? Even if Frazier is responsible for this, is that enough to warrant keeping a head coaching job in spite of all his other deficiencies?

So I'm rather undecided on this. I see positives and negatives, but given that I think the biggest negative on this team to the Win Loss column is the QB talent, then I question whether or not canning the coach is going to help solve the problem. The bigger question there is what many of the board have asked which is "why do we think Spielman can pick a winner" or IMO, "Is any GM really so smart as to pick the winning QB out of a line up or is it just dumb luck." If it is the latter then Spielman is just like everyone else and you take the lumps. (He seems quite adept at wheeling and dealing, which is a positive.)

We need to start over and get rid of all remnants of Brad Childress (which Frazier is part of). His defense, which by his own words has changed little since 2008, is continually soft and gives up too many big plays at inopportune times. Clock management is poor as is a lot of his decision making such as when to go for two, his track record of poor performances coming out of a bye week, performance on the road, halftime adjustments etc.

I think the "better coordinator" comment is probably a very valid one, Frasier needs to channel some Andy Reid in this respect and hire guys who are better than he is at the Xs and Os and then focus on his strength as a motivator.

Or we can find a guy that can do both