What are the missing pieces for this Vikings team?

[PurpleMustReign]

It is no coincidence Zim has won the only game the offense has scored more than 14 points in. But keep blaming the D.

Did Dalton start playing defensive lineman and I missed it? The defense gives up 196 rushing yards in a game and you're figuring out a way to pin that on Dalton?

My point has been proven.

[Mothman]

If you watched those Bengles games and came away with anything other than that Dalton sucks, you would be in the minority.

I'm capable of drawing more than one conclusion from a game.

It is no coincidence Zim has won the only game the offense has scored more than 14 points in. But keep blaming the D.

It's also no coincidence that, as a defensive coordinator and HC, he's been on the losing end of playoff games in which the winning teams scored 29, 21, 24, 31, 19, 27, 10 and 38. That 10 obviously stands out and I imagine we all remember that game (in frigid conditions against Seattle).

His defenses weren't just victims of poor performances by the offenses in those games. That just not a credible argument.

It's not a matter of "blaming the D" for the losses. The main argument for Zimmer's continued viability as Vikings head coach and for their chances to win a Super Bowl has been and remains that he fields defenses good enough to do the heavy lifting on the way to a championship and that all they need is an above average offense. Where is the evidence to support that idea?

The average number of points allowed by teams with Zimmer-coached defenses in the postseason is 24.7. Some of the points allowed in the games above came on returns but there's no way there were enough of the latter to drop that average below 20. I understand that offense influences defense. The opposite is also true.

Bottom line: Zimmer's been a defensive coordinator or head coach for 19 years in the NFL and the number of playoff games teams have won as a direct consequence of a dominant performance by one of his defenses is zero. That seriously undermines the idea that the Vikings are going to march to a Super Bowl win on the strength of a Zimmer defense. There's just no history to suggest that. It's obviously not impossible but it looks increasingly unlikely.

[StumpHunter]

It is no coincidence Zim has won the only game the offense has scored more than 14 points in. But keep blaming the D.

Did Dalton start playing defensive lineman and I missed it? The defense gives up 196 rushing yards in a game and you're figuring out a way to pin that on Dalton?

No, but he does give the opposition great field position, pick sixes and keeps his defense on the field with a bunch of 3 and outs. His play also dictates the other team run the ball more, because they don't have to pass.

[Mothman]

Did Dalton start playing defensive lineman and I missed it? The defense gives up 196 rushing yards in a game and you're figuring out a way to pin that on Dalton?

No, but he does give the opposition great field position, pick sixes and keeps his defense on the field with a bunch of 3 and outs. His play also dictates the other team run the ball more, because they don't have to pass.

Dalton wasn't even the QB in the first of those Bengals playoff losses, it was Carson Palmer. In the three where Dalton was QB, he threw one pick 6 (and that was in the game where HOU scored 31, meaning Zimmer's defense still allowed a significant number of points).

A QB can't keep his team's defense on the field any longer than they allow themselves to be on the field. Every time a defense takes the field, they have an opportunity to force a three-and-out or even to do something more, like take the ball away.

An opponent may choose to emphasize running the ball but that doesn't automatically mean they will be successful. If a team comes out and runs the ball "because they don't have to pass" they can only keep it up if the defense fails to stop it. Stop the run and you stop the strategy. That's what actual great defenses do. When the offense struggles they pick up the slack. When the offense turns it over in their own territory, a great defense doesn't take the field with the assumption the opposing team will score, they come out and smack the opposing team in the mouth. They stuff the run. They push the team back with sacks and TFLs. They make a goal line stand or they take the ball away. They don't simply become victims of their own team's struggling offense. They rise to the challenge.

[StumpHunter]

No, but he does give the opposition great field position, pick sixes and keeps his defense on the field with a bunch of 3 and outs. His play also dictates the other team run the ball more, because they don't have to pass.

Dalton wasn't even the QB in the first of those Bengals playoff losses, it was Carson Palmer. In the three where Dalton was QB, he threw one pick 6 (and that was in the game where HOU scored 31, meaning Zimmer's defense still allowed a significant number of points).

A QB can't keep his team's defense on the field any longer than they allow themselves to be on the field. Every time a defense takes the field, they have an opportunity to force a three-and-out or even to do something more, like take the ball away.

An opponent may choose to emphasize running the ball but that doesn't automatically mean they will be successful. If a team comes out and runs the ball "because they don't have to pass" they can only keep it up if the defense fails to stop it. Stop the run and you stop the strategy. That's what actual great defenses do. When the offense struggles they pick up the slack. When the offense turns it over in their own territory, a great defense doesn't take the field with the assumption the opposing team will score, they come out and smack the opposing team in the mouth. They stuff the run. They push the team back with sacks and TFLs. They make a goal line stand or they take the ball away. They don't simply become victims of their own team's struggling offense. They rise to the challenge.

Palmer wasn't much better.

It sounds like what you want out of a defenses is a defense that can win in the playoffs despite the QB or offensive play. Essentially a Ravens, TB or Broncos D. So while possible, a once in a decade type of D. Seems reasonable.

[Mothman]

Palmer wasn't much better.

It sounds like what you want out of a defenses is a defense that can win in the playoffs despite the QB or offensive play. Essentially a Ravens, TB or Broncos D. So while possible, a once in a decade type of D. Seems reasonable.

Who doesn't want that out of a defense? It's not what I expect, but of course it's what I want. More to the point: it's basically how Zimmer's teams are being sold by his most ardent supporters. His teams will supposedly win with defense. The offense will just need to be "good enough". That's been the narrative in Vikingsland for 5 years.

The larger point is to simply push back on the excuses used to justify past and present failings of Zimmer's defenses. I don't expect perfection but if the narrative is "win with defense" and "keep Zimmer because his defenses are so good" then the defenses need to be really good, not just statistically but situationally. They need to stuff the run and get off the field. When opponents get the ball in great field position, they need to force turnovers or FGs instead of allowing TDs and so on.

[fiestavike]

Palmer wasn't much better.

It sounds like what you want out of a defenses is a defense that can win in the playoffs despite the QB or offensive play. Essentially a Ravens, TB or Broncos D. So while possible, a once in a decade type of D. Seems reasonable.

Who doesn't want that out of a defense? It's not what I expect, but of course it's what I want. More to the point: it's basically how Zimmer's teams are being sold by his most ardent supporters. His teams will supposedly win with defense. The offense will just need to be "good enough". That's been the narrative in Vikingsland for 5 years.

The larger point is to simply push back on the excuses used to justify past and present failings of Zimmer's defenses. I don't expect perfection but if the narrative is "win with defense" and "keep Zimmer because his defenses are so good" then the defenses need to be really good, not just statistically but situationally. They need to stuff the run and get off the field. When opponents get the ball in great field position, they need to force turnovers or FGs instead of allowing TDs and so on.

Its still too early to draw firm conclusions about 'Zimmer's Defense' being incapable of being strong enough to lead a team to a championship. On average he typically does have good defenses, but its also streaky. When things get out of sync, they get really out of sync, and sometimes it seems to take a few games to get it back on track. More importantly its also a read and react defense which doesn't play downhill. I think against top offenses or offenses that give them lots of false reads or misdirection (see: PHI) they can sometimes get back on their heels. I think in order to succeed in the playoffs Zimmer will likely have to call a more aggressive and risky gameplan. It may be that he just doesn't/won't do that. If that's the case, the Viking's strong defense will likely have to be the compliment to an even stronger or complimentary offense if the Vikings are going to win it all. I haven't ruled out that Stefanski might be able to elevate this unit sufficiently to make this a possibility this year. The return of David Morgan and the use of 2TE sets cannot be overestimated. But the real test for this will be the Bears who have a dominant front 7. If they can find a way to run the ball against them, this team still has a shot this year.

[Mothman]

Its still too early to draw firm conclusions about 'Zimmer's Defense' being incapable of being strong enough to lead a team to a championship.

Maybe but 19 years of coordinating defenses or running one as a head coach is pretty substantial example. 5 years will be too, for that matter. Once this year season is over we'll have half a decade of Zimmer-coached Vikings defenses from which to draw conclusions. That's quite a bit.

On average he typically does have good defenses, but its also streaky. When things get out of sync, they get really out of sync, and sometimes it seems to take a few games to get it back on track. More importantly its also a read and react defense which doesn't play downhill. I think against top offenses or offenses that give them lots of false reads or misdirection (see: PHI) they can sometimes get back on their heels. I think in order to succeed in the playoffs Zimmer will likely have to call a more aggressive and risky gameplan. It may be that he just doesn't/won't do that. If that's the case, the Viking's strong defense will likely have to be the compliment to an even stronger or complimentary offense if the Vikings are going to win it all.

I think that's likely the case. Zimmer's defense is designed to play aggressively against the pass, which is why it's at it's best when protecting a lead. he excels at designing and disguising blitzes, throwing curves at an offense so they don't know where pressure will be coming from and who will ultimately drop back in coverage. It's at it's worst when an opponent gets their running game going because that also put the defense back on their heels and limits what they do best. A stronger, more complimentary offense could give the defense the leads it needs or at least the necessary latitude to remain aggressive.

I haven't ruled out that Stefanski might be able to elevate this unit sufficiently to make this a possibility this year. The return of David Morgan and the use of 2TE sets cannot be overestimated. But the real test for this will be the Bears who have a dominant front 7. If they can find a way to run the ball against them, this team still has a shot this year.

... and they'll have to find a way to do that 2 weeks in a row. I'm interested to see how the Bears will approach Sunday's game. It means everything to the Vikes. For Chicago, it's a chance to earn a first round bye so the stakes are relatively high but they need the Rams to lose. They know if they win they'll host the Vikes a week later so while I expect a sincere effort from the Bears, I'm thinking we may see a pretty vanilla game plan from them (at least as vanilla as Nagy gets).

There's also the interesting dynamic that if they lose, they get to host a familiar opponent they just played. If they win, they'll be more likely to host the defending NFC champs, who have won 4 of their last 5 and just beat two playoff teams. Under the circumstances, the Vikes are probably the more attractive playoff matchup from Chicago's point of view.

[StumpHunter]

Palmer wasn't much better.

It sounds like what you want out of a defenses is a defense that can win in the playoffs despite the QB or offensive play. Essentially a Ravens, TB or Broncos D. So while possible, a once in a decade type of D. Seems reasonable.

Who doesn't want that out of a defense? It's not what I expect, but of course it's what I want. More to the point: it's basically how Zimmer's teams are being sold by his most ardent supporters. His teams will supposedly win with defense. The offense will just need to be "good enough". That's been the narrative in Vikingsland for 5 years.

The larger point is to simply push back on the excuses used to justify past and present failings of Zimmer's defenses. I don't expect perfection but if the narrative is "win with defense" and "keep Zimmer because his defenses are so good" then the defenses need to be really good, not just statistically but situationally. They need to stuff the run and get off the field. When opponents get the ball in great field position, they need to force turnovers or FGs instead of allowing TDs and so on.

I think the hope is that with a consistent defense, you are a QB away from a championship. It seemed like they had that QB with Teddy and someone felt Cousins was that guy. If that someone was Zim and not Rick, I have some serious concerns about the HC. Based on what Zim has said about meaningless QB stats in the past and not doing the things that help a team win, I think Cousins was a Rick decision.

The problem on this team is that the GM and HC are better at evaluating defense than offense. One has to go, and it should be the one who traded for Bradford, gave a fully guaranteed, top 5 contract to an average QB, and who sucks at finding oline via the draft and FAs.

[fiestavike]

Maybe but 19 years of coordinating defenses or running one as a head coach is pretty substantial example. 5 years will be too, for that matter. Once this year season is over we'll have half a decade of Zimmer-coached Vikings defenses from which to draw conclusions. That's quite a bit.

Fair point, but IMO this Vikings unit is a far stronger group than he ever had in Cincinnati. That whole organization is quite a bit like the McCombs era Vikings and I think a fairly mediocre defense looked pretty good mostly because of Zimmer. And as you intimated, so many variables related to the offense etc. I think we agree that there is room for criticism with regard to the style of defense in that it maybe depends on too many other factors rather than being capable of imposing its will from the start. It is more of a counter punching defense than one that forces the issue outside of obvious passing downs.

[Mothman]

Fair point, but IMO this Vikings unit is a far stronger group than he ever had in Cincinnati. That whole organization is quite a bit like the McCombs era Vikings and I think a fairly mediocre defense looked pretty good mostly because of Zimmer. And as you intimated, so many variables related to the offense etc. I think we agree that there is room for criticism with regard to the style of defense in that it maybe depends on too many other factors rather than being capable of imposing its will from the start. It is more of a counter punching defense than one that forces the issue outside of obvious passing downs.

Yes, I think that's a good way to describe it.

[fiestavike]

Fair point, but IMO this Vikings unit is a far stronger group than he ever had in Cincinnati. That whole organization is quite a bit like the McCombs era Vikings and I think a fairly mediocre defense looked pretty good mostly because of Zimmer. And as you intimated, so many variables related to the offense etc. I think we agree that there is room for criticism with regard to the style of defense in that it maybe depends on too many other factors rather than being capable of imposing its will from the start. It is more of a counter punching defense than one that forces the issue outside of obvious passing downs.

Yes, I think that's a good way to describe it.

I'd just add, it may not be a terrible thing to have a defense that plays elite 'complimentary defense'. I think there is a balance that can be achieved between an efficient offense and a Zimmer defense that could be a championship recipe, without either side of the ball having to be fully able to impose its will. That said, a Zimmer defense with an offense that CAN impose its will in the running game and move the chains in the passing game seems to me the most obvious recipe for a Vikings superbowl. That makes starting Tom Compton and Mike Remmers at Guard all the more mystifying, not to mention hiring Defilippo to call 40+ pass plays a game.

*edit
It also is why Cousins style of game may not be the best fit for this team. Other than his lack of pocket presence and occasional lapses in composure, this is really my only criticism of Kirk Cousins. But, he has looked better the last two weeks, and I'm willing to believe some of the blame for this season not going better is on DeFilippo. There is a reason the Shanahan's like Cousins, and we are starting to run an offense that bears more resemblance to that style of play. Heavy sets, off tackle running, bootlegs...this is where we will get a chance to see Kirk Cousins at his best.