Fire Spielman too?

[Mothman]

Well for me you hit that on the head with your last part. This year it's been mildly effective against the awful defenses we've played but I think we've scored 10, 14, and 20 points against CAR, CIN, and SEA. About 14.6 per game. Unfortunately run, run, pass against good defenses just get's eaten alive.

You and I both know that "run run, pass" stuff is an exaggeration. Yes they fall into that pattern at times and I agree that sometimes they do it too much but that's not all there is to the offense. Better defenses tend to be better against anything a team does. Football isn't just about outsmarting opponents or tricking them by being unpredictable,. It's about out-playing them and that gets back to talent, matchups, etc.

Peterson can't save him like he usually does, the short bubble screens to patterson have been scouted out already. The "easy" stuff Musgrave relies on just doesn't work.

So what's your alternative? Run nothing but "hard stuff"? During Sunday's game, you complained when you thought they ran Peterson too much and were too predictable on their first possession and you complained when they tried to use that to their advantage on a deep play action pass to Patterson to start the next possession. What's acceptable on first down? Mid-range passes only?

When a team can't execute the easy stuff consistently, that's usually a sign that there are problems on the field, not just on the sidelines.

And for me I think the talent has become a scapegoat for some people to ignore the coaching staff so that pretty much goes both ways.

Who is ignoring the coaching staff? I certainly don't. I've agreed that they can be too predictable at times. I agree that they sometimes call coverage that's too soft or make strategic mistakes during games. They certainly haven't been perfect and I think coaching has hurt the Vikes in the win column this season. I've acknowledged that over and over again and I'm not aware of anyone else here who is ignoring the role the coaches have played in the team's struggles this season.

Most of us that have thought about it or put effort into analyzing this team have realized quite some time ago that both the talent and coaching are sub par to win a championship. Frazier and company's style, to keep it close and grind out games just simply isn't that effective of a strategy regardless if you're more or less talented than your opponent. Not just this year, but in 2011 as well, we lost a number of close games in the exact same fashion, 5 of which we lead at half time.

I think it's a misconception that playing close games is their style. They've blown out some opponents and I'm sure they'd love to blow them all out but most NFL games aren't won by wide margins and when a team doesn't have a significant talent advantage over the majority of it's opponents, they're usually going to end up in a lot of close games. What about the Vikings roster suggests to you that they shouldn't be in so many close games?

As we've seen, that type of strategy and play calling is prone to losing the game late. The reason the no talent excuse loses weight with me is that, some how, we've put up leads and some of them are pretty big which means the offense is scoring and the defense is holding, yet some how that execution stops and routinely fails late in games.

You said it above: "the execution stops" late in games. It's rarely solid for 4 quarters anyway. Maybe that's a player and coaching issue but it's not just a coaching issue. You have seen the drops, the missed blocks and tackles, the defenders beat in coverage, the failure to get pressure on opponents and so on. How are those things not indicative of player/talent issues? Again, I'm not trying to put forth "an all or nothing" argument or say the coaches bear no responsibility for wins and losses. I think coaching probably cost the team at least one win this season and arguably more. I'm just tired of seeing people avoid the reality of the talent gap between the Vikings and the better teams in the league. That gap isn't an excuse, it's a reality. Overall, the Vikes are at the mid-to-lower end of the talent spectrum in the NFL and unfortunately, a few of the areas in which they're weak or inexperienced (or banged up) are pretty crucial to success. That's why they've played in so many close games the last few years and it's why it's so difficult for them to win consistently. Their margin for error is slim.

All 3 years have been remarkably similar, the talent isn't much different (I'd even argue it's better than it was in 2012) and players come and go. The only constant when it comes to on the field is Frazier and company's strategy and play calling. Any year could be a 10-6 playoff run, or a 4-12 dumpster dive under this guy.

Again, how can you possibly miss the role of talent in that scenario? Do you think the teams that are consistent winners from year to year in the NFL are teams with average or below average talent and starting QBs like Ponder, Webb, Cassel and Freeman? Which NFL teams win consistently year after year without the stability of a quality starting QB?

Look, I apologize if any of the above seems worded too strongly but can you at least acknowledge that there really is a talent issue on this team? I assume you don't see this as a Super Bowl roster just waiting for a new coaching staff. I can understand if people think coaching is a major issue for the Vikings but what I can't understand is the resistance I meet with every time I mention talent as one of the team's biggest problems.

[Mothman]

Sort of true, but not really. What little cap space we did have from the Childress fiasco, Frazier was allowed by Wilf to spend it on Mcnabb and if I remember right, we also had to send them a late round pick or two. I'm not saying Spielman didn't make like 90% of the decisions but their was still that 10% or so the coach was still allowed to pull his weight on.

That's why I said Spielman played one of two key roles in 2011. Frazier was in the other key role.

I'm confused. What part of my post was "sort of true, but not really"?

[mondry]

You and I both know that "run run, pass" stuff is an exaggeration. Yes they fall into that pattern at times and I agree that sometimes they do it too much but that's not all there is to the offense. Better defenses tend to be better against anything a team does. Football isn't just about outsmarting opponents or tricking them by being unpredictable,. It's about out-playing them and that gets back to talent, matchups, etc.

But is it really? Exaggerated that is. As I recall, first drive of the game, run run pass = sack fumble on an obvious passing situation. This stuff matters, that kind of telegraphed offense lead to them pinning their ears back and sacking cassel, stripping him, and recovering / taking the fumble to our 4 yard line. That's why good teams blow us out, that's why average to poor teams can hang around and win the game at the last second.

So what's your alternative? Run nothing but "hard stuff"? During Sunday's game, you complained when you thought they ran Peterson too much and were too predictable on their first possession and you complained when they tried to use that to their advantage on a deep play action pass to Patterson to start the next possession. What's acceptable on first down? Mid-range passes only?

When a team can't execute the easy stuff consistently, that's usually a sign that there are problems on the field, not just on the sidelines.

That doesn't even make sense from what you just said. I complained they ran Peterson too obviously and I complained he called a low percentage deep bomb. Maybe I'm just too smart for my own good but to me it's clearly not wise to rely on either extreme of the spectrum. In this case, I certainly WOULD like to see more mid range passes! You don't need to hit a 60 yard bomb to take the emphasis off the run defense, complete a couple 10-15 yard passes behind them and they'll back off.

Let me ask you this. Does this offense really stand out to you as a "blow the top off of the defense" on a regular basis kind of offense? To me I'd have to say absolutely not. #1, our offensive line usually struggles to offer good enough protection to buy the time needed for such plays. #2 we don't have a Megatron, randy moss, AJ Green kind of receiver that can both get deep and out physically play CB's. #3 We don't really have a great QB to pull that off either. What we do have is some WR's who are smaller, quicker, and excel at timing routes. We have a QB who can be fairly accurate and on time in the intermediate passing game and a line that will give you a couple seconds at best.

So you're damn right when I see a play action bomb on first down to start the 2nd drive I'm going to cringe. It's an extremely low chance of success kind of play, in fact I'd say our best hope is that some how we draw a pass interference out of it but worst case it's knocked in the air and lands in the DB's chest for an int.

Why is it always one extreme or the other? Can't we just have a balanced passing attack that uses our teams actual strengths in the play calling? The play calling on those first two drives left little room for success and the result was 2 three and outs. My point is, maybe with better players we can overcome that, but the coaching problem / play calling issue will still be there, that's why it's my focus. I think we have a Marty Shottenheimer on our hands so yeah, give Frazier some better players and I think he can make the playoffs more often than not, but that style doesn't win championships against the best teams in the league. I'm fine with getting rid of Frazier now because I don't need to see him fail with an elite team to come to the same conclusion like we did with Childress.

I really want to point something out from our 3rd drive against CIN. Short pass on first down, Patterson end around for 11, short pass to Jennings for 5 yards and on 2nd and 5 a nice 36 yard TD to wright on a designed roll out with Wright executing a double move. Hopefully you can see the difference between the low percentage bomb deep over the middle compared to the TD to Wright I just described. The latter was set up by Musgrave calling those short quick passes. Cassel and the boyz executed it well because that's their strength and instead of a mindless hand off to the RB we call a brilliant double move that the DB bites on thinking it's another short pass.

This is what's so frustrating for me, we've seen flashes of brilliance from Musgrave and we've seen the players capable of handling it and executing it. Yet as good as he seemingly -can- be, he's horrendously bad at other times. Run, run, pass, might be exaggerated but it happens. Low % bombs over the middle may not be often but they happen. It sucks all the momentum out of our sails to start the game!

I think it's a misconception that playing close games is their style. They've blown out some opponents and I'm sure they'd love to blow them all out but most NFL games aren't won by wide margins and when a team doesn't have a significant talent advantage over the majority of it's opponents, they're usually going to end up in a lot of close games. What about the Vikings roster suggests to you that they shouldn't be in close games?

Well we disagree about the level of talent on this team so there's no real way to talk about this.

I think the major thing isn't so much even about close games or not, but in how they become close and ultimately finish out that irks me.

Going to an xmas thing so have a good one!

[S197]

Frazier and the Vikings moved away from playing a lot of cover 2 weeks ago and I don't think most fans even noticed.

Just curious, but what makes you say this? Barber analyzed a few breakdowns in the defense during the Bengals game and they were all cover 2 looks.

[Mothman]

But is it really? Exaggerated that is. As I recall, first drive of the game, run run pass = sack fumble on an obvious passing situation. This stuff matters, that kind of telegraphed offense lead to them pinning their ears back and sacking cassel, stripping him, and recovering / taking the fumble to our 4 yard line. That's why good teams blow us out, that's why average to poor teams can hang around and win the game at the last second.

I don't disagree that playcalling matters and in a very indirect sort of way, I suppose you can say it led to that strip sack but that sack occurred on 3rd and 6 and the Vikings kept 7 players back in protection on that play. Teams are going to get into 3rd and 6 situations over the course of games, regardless of the playcalling on first and second down, and they have to be able to execute in those situations, don't you agree? I can't blame the outcome of that series on the playcalling. In fact, I think that play is a great example of the kind of poor execution that has killed the Vikes all year. Loadholt and Gerhart both completely ignored the outside pressure from the right, giving that Bengals defender a free path to Cassel, who either didn't see him or didn't react quickly enough to the pressure to get rid of the ball or sufficiently protect it. The players have to be able to execute better than that on 3rd and 6. After all, it's not like it was 3rd and 14...

That doesn't even make sense from what you just said. I complained they ran Peterson too obviously and I complained he called a low percentage deep bomb. Maybe I'm just too smart for my own good but to me it's clearly not wise to rely on either extreme of the spectrum.

It's not but I don't think they rely on those extremes. As you pointed out, look at the playcalling on the third series. they didn't rely on either extreme there and it was effective but if that sort of playcalling was all they did, it wouldn't remain effective either. You have to make the defense defend the whole field.

Let me ask you this. Does this offense really stand out to you as a "blow the top off of the defense" on a regular basis kind of offense? To me I'd have to say absolutely not. #1, our offensive line usually struggles to offer good enough protection to buy the time needed for such plays. #2 we don't have a Megatron, randy moss, AJ Green kind of receiver that can both get deep and out physically play CB's. #3 We don't really have a great QB to pull that off either. What we do have is some WR's who are smaller, quicker, and excel at timing routes. We have a QB who can be fairly accurate and on time in the intermediate passing game and a line that will give you a couple seconds at best.

I don't think it's a ""blow the top off of the defense" on a regular basis kind of offense but I do think they're capable of connecting on some of those deep throws.

So you're damn right when I see a play action bomb on first down to start the 2nd drive I'm going to cringe. It's an extremely low chance of success kind of play, in fact I'd say our best hope is that some how we draw a pass interference out of it but worst case it's knocked in the air and lands in the DB's chest for an int.

Seriously, there's no chance at all they actually complete a pass like that? Their best case scenario is pass interference? That's a bit harsh.

Why is it always one extreme or the other? Why is it always one extreme or the other? Can't we just have a balanced passing attack that uses our teams actual strengths in the play calling? The play calling on those first two drives left little room for success and the result was 2 three and outs.

It's not always one extreme or the other. That's probably just your frustration talking. If it was always one extreme or the other, the Vikings two main starting QBs wouldn't have completion percentages above 60% for the season. Cassel wouldn't be averaging 7.3 yards per attempt and Ponder wouldn't have an average of just under 7 yards per attempt. They don't complete enough bombs or get enough yardage on screens and short passes to achieve those numbers. They have a mid-range passing game and it's been pretty effective at times.

I mean no offense but I think you're going overboard in suggesting the playcalling on those first two drives left little room for success. We've already covered the first series above and on the second series, they followed the incompletion on first down with an 8 yard run on second down, setting up a very make-able 3rd and 2 situation. On 3rd down, Cassel threw a short pass to Chase Ford, who was past the first down marker but dropped the pass. In what way did the playcalling on that series leave little room for success?

I really want to point something out from our 3rd drive against CIN. Short pass on first down, Patterson end around for 11, short pass to Jennings for 5 yards and on 2nd and 5 a nice 36 yard TD to wright on a designed roll out with Wright executing a double move. Hopefully you can see the difference between the low percentage bomb deep over the middle compared to the TD to Wright I just described.

I see the difference. I also see no reason why that sequence couldn't have followed an 8 yard run by Peterson and a catch by Ford on the second series... except that Ford dropped the pass. Players have to execute or no call is successful.

The latter was set up by Musgrave calling those short quick passes. Cassel and the boyz executed it well because that's their strength and instead of a mindless hand off to the RB we call a brilliant double move that the DB bites on thinking it's another short pass.

Okay, I have to ask: when is it okay to run the ball? Is it ever okay to run on first down or is that always mindless? Peterson has over 1200 yards rushing and 10 TDs this season. He's rushed for 3300+ yards and 22 TDs over the past 31 games and he was the MVP of the league last year but it's "mindless" to give him the ball?

This is what's so frustrating for me, we've seen flashes of brilliance from Musgrave and we've seen the players capable of handling it and executing it. Yet as good as he seemingly -can- be, he's horrendously bad at other times. Run, run, pass, might be exaggerated but it happens. Low % bombs over the middle may not be often but they happen. It sucks all the momentum out of our sails to start the game!

That's where we differ. You see "run, run pass" and a low percentage incompletion on first down as calls that sucked the momentum out of the Vikings sails to start the game. I see failure to execute on third down as the culprit. The dropped pass was inarguably a failure on the field, not Musgrave's failure and that 3rd and 6 at the end of the first series should have ended in nothing worse than a punt but again, there was a serious breakdown in execution. You said at the beginning of your post that "this stuff matters" but that applies as much to the execution on the field as it does to the playcalling itself. I don't think there was anything "horrendously bad" in the playcalling on the first two series. The biggest difference was in execution.

I think the major thing isn't so much even about close games or not, but in how they become close and ultimately finish out that irks me.

Well, that irks me too.

Going to an xmas thing so have a good one!

Thanks! You too. Merry Christmas!

[Mothman]

Just curious, but what makes you say this? Barber analyzed a few breakdowns in the defense during the Bengals game and they were all cover 2 looks.

They haven't completely abandoned that zone but they've moved heavily away from it. They switched back to it for a little while in the Bengals game (I think it was after Prater and Cole went down) and then seemed to bail on it again after it started getting picked apart.

Anyway, I said that because they've been utilizing more and more man coverage in recent weeks.

[S197]

They haven't completely abandoned that zone but they've moved heavily away from it. They switched back to it for a little while in the Bengals game (I think it was after Prater and Cole went down) and then seemed to bail on it again after it started getting picked apart.

Anyway, I said that because they've been utilizing more and more man coverage in recent weeks.

Interesting. I've seen them run some two deep with man under, cover-1, cover-1 robber, etc. in the past few weeks but I haven't really gone back to see how much they ran it earlier in the season. Maybe running more man (and especially press coverage) has been a factor in Rhodes looking better as the season has progressed. Clearly no team runs solely zone or man, they need to mix it up, so naturally there will be some instances where zone is a better call than man-to-man. I don't want it to seem like I'm saying the cover-2 is bad in all instances.

I think one of the areas where the play calling has been particularly bad has been in the redzone. We've discussed the Washington play in the past but here's a similar play call against Carolina that I'm not particularly fond of and illustrates where a zone coverage probably would have been a better call.



In this instance, the Vikings are playing man-to-man, which I think is a particularly bad call against a bunched set. Carolina sends their receiver in motion and Robinson tracks him across the field, a dead giveaway that they're in man-to-man. Both receivers run crossing routes essentially using the defenders and the confusion almost like a pick play (even though there's no contact initiated). For as much heat as Robinson gets, I really don't think he had much of a chance on this play given the call. I'd prefer the defense be able to audible into a zone read when they see a bunch set like that.

[PurpleKoolaid]

What baffles me is, when AD is in, they put at least 8 in the box. All the defenses AD has seen use this, AND they run blitz all the time. And that's why both ponder and Cassel have so much pressure. The game AD didn't play, Cassel blew up the Eagles. Our coaches, after all these years with AD, should have found ways to punish a D for always having 8 in the box, and constantly blitzing. And none of our players, esp. AD, can block when that happens. They need to be able to read the blocking better, and make them pay with screens and stuff. Esp. with CP. The short stuff he can catch. Put the dude in the slot. He would eat them alive with his talent. But this coaching staff, with 3 years, cant find a way to slow down that rush.

[Mothman]

Interesting. I've seen them run some two deep with man under, cover-1, cover-1 robber, etc. in the past few weeks but I haven't really gone back to see how much they ran it earlier in the season. Maybe running more man (and especially press coverage) has been a factor in Rhodes looking better as the season has progressed.

I think that's probable, although I imagine just gaining experience helped too.

I think one of the areas where the play calling has been particularly bad has been in the redzone. We've discussed the Washington play in the past but here's a similar play call against Carolina that I'm not particularly fond of and illustrates where a zone coverage probably would have been a better call.

In this instance, the Vikings are playing man-to-man, which I think is a particularly bad call against a bunched set. Carolina sends their receiver in motion and Robinson tracks him across the field, a dead giveaway that they're in man-to-man. Both receivers run crossing routes essentially using the defenders and the confusion almost like a pick play (even though there's no contact initiated). For as much heat as Robinson gets, I really don't think he had much of a chance on this play given the call. I'd prefer the defense be able to audible into a zone read when they see a bunch set like that.

I would too. Maybe they even had that option and they just didn't take it. Either way, I agree that zone coverage would probably have been a better choice on that play.

Good post!

[Funkytown]

That doesn't even make sense from what you just said. I complained they ran Peterson too obviously and I complained he called a low percentage deep bomb. Maybe I'm just too smart for my own good but to me it's clearly not wise to rely on either extreme of the spectrum. In this case, I certainly WOULD like to see more mid range passes! You don't need to hit a 60 yard bomb to take the emphasis off the run defense, complete a couple 10-15 yard passes behind them and they'll back off.

This!

My friend texted me the other day out of frustration, and I basically came back with, "Yeah. Why can't we work the middle of the field? Why can't we do more short-to-mid-range passes just to get the defense to back off and open things up a bit? Why is it mostly run or deep ball?" And he's like, "Because Musgrave would have to think for that to happen." Sure would do wonders for our team to get the short-to-mid passing game going and go from there. Opening things up and establishing a rhythm early and often in games would go a long way! We'll figure it out one of these days....years?

[mondry]

In this instance, the Vikings are playing man-to-man, which I think is a particularly bad call against a bunched set. Carolina sends their receiver in motion and Robinson tracks him across the field, a dead giveaway that they're in man-to-man. Both receivers run crossing routes essentially using the defenders and the confusion almost like a pick play (even though there's no contact initiated). For as much heat as Robinson gets, I really don't think he had much of a chance on this play given the call. I'd prefer the defense be able to audible into a zone read when they see a bunch set like that.

Yeah I remember that play. As soon as I saw Robinson in motion on Steve Smith is it? I knew we were in trouble. Watching the play again shows it's pretty much a lost cause the second they see we're in man. I see no way for Robinson to execute better to make that play a success.

This!

My friend texted me the other day out of frustration, and I basically came back with, "Yeah. Why can't we work the middle of the field? Why can't we do more short-to-mid-range passes just to get the defense to back off and open things up a bit? Why is it mostly run or deep ball?" And he's like, "Because Musgrave would have to think for that to happen." Sure would do wonders for our team to get the short-to-mid passing game going and go from there. Opening things up and establishing a rhythm early and often in games would go a long way! We'll figure it out one of these days....years?

Heck yeah it would! Our QB's have always done better when we focus on getting them involved early and into a rhythm. Far to often it's just run, run, and okay crucial third down and you haven't even attempted a throw yet, hope you pull it off on this critical third down!

[Pondering Her Percy]

He's been making them all season and he and his staff made plenty of them last year too. That's one of the main reasons they reached the playoffs.

Frazier and the Vikings moved away from playing a lot of cover 2 weeks ago and I don't think most fans even noticed. The main reason teams move up and down the field on the Vikings defense is because the Vikings players get overmatched and can't stop them. Constantly blaming it on coaching/scheme and giving the players a free pass is nothing more than denial of the obvious.

... and yet it's funny how effective that playcalling looks when the team is executing and AD is running for 2000 yards in a season or the Vikings are matched up against the (apparently unprepared) eagles defense.

The coaching staff have become scapegoats for a frustrated fan base that doesn't want to face the obvious: the roster simply isn't good enough. Maybe the coaching staff isn't either but as Demi said above, I'm not sure any coaching staff could win consistently with the talent on this current Vikings team.


That's correct but Spielman wasn't just twiddling his thumbs in 2011. Childress was gone and Spielman was completely in charge of the draft (which supposedly happened a few years earlier but who knows?). He wasn't GM yet but he had a powerful voice in personnel decisions so we can't just ignore that season. You're correct that Spielman has been GM for two seasons but the rebuilding process began a year earlier, with Spielman playing one of the two key roles.

I have noticed they have moved away from the cover 2 somewhat but not enough to say so...Either way....it took him half the season to finally realize it. He was letting teams nickel and dime us down the field and pretty much own the game. It shouldnt take someone that long to figure something out. I mean I'm really glad he FINALLY makes that adjustment when we are clearly out of the playoffs....great timing.

If we were so "overmatched", then how do these guys manage to beat teams like Philly, Pitt, and Chicago??? I'll tell you why....because the talent is there, but the coaching is not. They have enough talent on this team to beat a lot of teams in this league. They recently said the same thing on NFL Network a week or so ago. In no way am I giving the players a free pass because there are guys on this team that have underperformed this year but I believe coaching is the biggest problem of all.

Leslie Frazier and this staff have been well known for not making adjustments when you need to. Yeah we make the playoffs last year and a BIG reason for this was AP. But I'm pretty sure calling hand-offs to AP isnt making any kind of adjustment, it's having some common sense. It doesnt take a genius coach to make AP look good. AP makes himself look good. I've always said...what really sucks about the whole Bill Musgrave situation is, as long as AP looks good, Musgrave is going to look like a good OC. Last year we were one of the worse passing teams in the NFL but just because AP played out of his mind and was a big reason we got to the playoffs, Musgrave was safe. Jacksonville's offensive coordinator would look like a genius if he had AP in his offense too.

This is what my big beef was with Mike Priefer (ST coach). Many say they like him and our special teams looked good the last few years.....wrong. Mike Priefer was blessed with Cordarrelle Patterson and Percy Harvin the last two years who are two of the best returners in the NFL. If we had a different special teams coach are you really going to tell me Patterson and Harvin wouldnt succeed?? No. Everyone forgets Priefers arrogance to kick to Hester both games, Harvin before half after we score no less, and lack of making adjustments vs a "tanking" Cleveland team.

It has nothing to do with me "facing the obvious" about the team "not being good enough". For you to give the staff any kind of credit for what they have pulled all year is quite alarming. I mean explain the Freeman situation....that was 100% the COACHES decision. He even said it in his press conference. They basically tried to force Freeman to succeed and completely abandoned the running game which is our bread and butter. That staff was so focused on "fixing" our QB problem, that they threw over 40 times with a guy that had no clue about the offense. They basically set Freeman up for failure.

Also, Frazier's and his staff's judgement of talent is also terrible. I mean if it werent for injuries, I wonder if Rhodes and/or Patterson would still be getting the time they have. I mean Josh Robinson was starting over Rhodes the whole year until he went down.....Josh Robison!!!! Same goes for Cassel, Cole, the under-utilizing of Carlson and Floyd, etc. You wonder if Hodges or Mauti (even though he is a MLB) are any good or not when they're sitting behind a guy like Marvin Mitchell a lot of the year. My guess is, one if not both are better than Mitchell is. But they have a SERIOUS problem when it comes to having to tell a guy "Hey, we're going to start this guy this week. He's the better option for this team right now". Instead, he's being "buddy-buddy" with everyone and letting injuries decide who starts. It just makes him look worse and worse because guys that have been on his bench all year are all of the sudden becoming solid players.

If we can get a staff in here that knows how to utilize what we have, I think you will see a big improvement. Especially after you add in Spielman's "hole-fillers" through the draft and free agency

[Pondering Her Percy]

Again, how can you possibly miss the role of talent in that scenario? Do you think the teams that are consistent winners from year to year in the NFL are teams with average or below average talent and starting QBs like Ponder, Webb, Cassel and Freeman? Which NFL teams win consistently year after year without the stability of a quality starting QB?

First of all, Spielman pretty much had to give Ponder this year to prove himself and Cassel is a very good option for a backup. He also adds Freeman on the way to see if that would help at all. Like I said before, do you really think he will ignore QB this year?? No.

If you're going to say there is little talent at the QB position....I think we all agree. Same goes for LB, CB, NT, and LG. Of course there is little talent there....that's where the big holes are on this team and when you do a complete rebuild like Spielman has done, you have to have patience. He will address these position through the draft and free agency this year. Be patient!! But to say the team overall has little talent....I dont agree at all

[Webbfann]

WELCOME TO THE BOARD!!!

I have noticed they have moved away from the cover 2 somewhat but not enough to say so...Either way....it took him half the season to finally realize it. He was letting teams nickel and dime us down the field and pretty much own the game. It shouldnt take someone that long to figure something out. I mean I'm really glad he FINALLY makes that adjustment when we are clearly out of the playoffs....great timing.

If we were so "overmatched", then how do these guys manage to beat teams like Philly, Pitt, and Chicago??? I'll tell you why....because the talent is there, but the coaching is not. They have enough talent on this team to beat a lot of teams in this league. They recently said the same thing on NFL Network a week or so ago. In no way am I giving the players a free pass because there are guys on this team that have underperformed this year but I believe coaching is the biggest problem of all.

Leslie Frazier and this staff have been well known for not making adjustments when you need to. Yeah we make the playoffs last year and a BIG reason for this was AP. But I'm pretty sure calling hand-offs to AP isnt making any kind of adjustment, it's having some common sense. It doesnt take a genius coach to make AP look good. AP makes himself look good. I've always said...what really sucks about the whole Bill Musgrave situation is, as long as AP looks good, Musgrave is going to look like a good OC. Last year we were one of the worse passing teams in the NFL but just because AP played out of his mind and was a big reason we got to the playoffs, Musgrave was safe. Jacksonville's offensive coordinator would look like a genius if he had AP in his offense too.

This is what my big beef was with Mike Priefer (ST coach). Many say they like him and our special teams looked good the last few years.....wrong. Mike Priefer was blessed with Cordarrelle Patterson and Percy Harvin the last two years who are two of the best returners in the NFL. If we had a different special teams coach are you really going to tell me Patterson and Harvin wouldnt succeed?? No. Everyone forgets Priefers arrogance to kick to Hester both games, Harvin before half after we score no less, and lack of making adjustments vs a "tanking" Cleveland team.

It has nothing to do with me "facing the obvious" about the team "not being good enough". For you to give the staff any kind of credit for what they have pulled all year is quite alarming. I mean explain the Freeman situation....that was 100% the COACHES decision. He even said it in his press conference. They basically tried to force Freeman to succeed and completely abandoned the running game which is our bread and butter. That staff was so focused on "fixing" our QB problem, that they threw over 40 times with a guy that had no clue about the offense. They basically set Freeman up for failure.

Also, Frazier's and his staff's judgement of talent is also terrible. I mean if it werent for injuries, I wonder if Rhodes and/or Patterson would still be getting the time they have. I mean Josh Robinson was starting over Rhodes the whole year until he went down.....Josh Robison!!!! Same goes for Cassel, Cole, the under-utilizing of Carlson and Floyd, etc. You wonder if Hodges or Mauti (even though he is a MLB) are any good or not when they're sitting behind a guy like Marvin Mitchell a lot of the year. My guess is, one if not both are better than Mitchell is. But they have a SERIOUS problem when it comes to having to tell a guy "Hey, we're going to start this guy this week. He's the better option for this team right now". Instead, he's being "buddy-buddy" with everyone and letting injuries decide who starts. It just makes him look worse and worse because guys that have been on his bench all year are all of the sudden becoming solid players.

If we can get a staff in here that knows how to utilize what we have, I think you will see a big improvement. Especially after you add in Spielman's "hole-fillers" through the draft and free agency

[Funkytown]

If we can get a staff in here that knows how to utilize what we have, I think you will see a big improvement. Especially after you add in Spielman's "hole-fillers" through the draft and free agency