Page 4 of 4
Re: Chris Cook article
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 4:32 pm
by S197
Mothman wrote:
You have to factor in that a fairly substantial percentage of draft choices, even first and second round choices, don't work out so while the failure of Tyrell Johnson might reflect poorly on his position coach, it might just indicate that Johnson was one of those second round draft picks who didn't have what it takes. Allen and McCauley were both 3rd round picks, which means they weren't exactly the cream of the DB crop coming out of college, although 3rd round picks certainly aren't the bottom of the barrel either. If one of those 3 players had gone on to be successful with another team, it would be a different story but as it is, their failures may have had nothing to do with Woods at all. They might represent failures of the scouting department or just players who couldn't make it for long in the pros. I don't think there's merit to placing blame at Woods' feet unless someone can point to a reason why his coaching was a significant factor in those players not working out as pros. I'm not saying he's blameless, just reiterating that we don't know so while criticism of the Vikings in this area may have merit, specifically blaming Woods seems like a stretch without more to back up the criticism. It should certainly take more than "these players didn't work out" or "He's one of Mike Tice's boys and should have left when Tice left."
I agree, which is why I said finger pointing is difficult at this point. However, the secondary is now comprised of two 1st rounders (Smith and Rhodes), a high 2nd rounder (Cook), and a high 3rd rounder (Robinson). That's a significant investment in talent. It's too early to say one way or the other but I think at some point (soon), the lack of talent argument starts to lose weight
if the secondary regresses. That's a big if at this point, as we saw improvement last year, but in that scenario people need to start being held accountable. It certainly doesn't begin and end with Woods.
I know you can play "what if" scenarios a million different ways (the joys of the offseason
) but I do think we will know a great deal after this year, especially if Cook flounders.
Re: Chris Cook article
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 4:51 pm
by Mothman
JEC334 wrote:The D. Coordinator is there to go over plays and when the DB is looking pretty shabby, its the DB coach fault for starting a guy who is not contributing like he should.
At what point is the DB himself responsible for "looking pretty shabby"?
By the way, the assertion that Woods was on Tice's staff didn't sound right to me so I checked and he wasn't on Tice's staff. He came to the Vikes with Tomlin in 2006, after coaching with him in Tampa Bay in 2005.
Re: Chris Cook article
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 5:11 pm
by Mothman
S197 wrote:I agree, which is why I said finger pointing is difficult at this point. However, the secondary is now comprised of two 1st rounders (Smith and Rhodes), a high 2nd rounder (Cook), and a high 3rd rounder (Robinson). That's a significant investment in talent. It's too early to say one way or the other but I think at some point (soon), the lack of talent argument starts to lose weight
if the secondary regresses. That's a big if at this point, as we saw improvement last year, but in that scenario people need to start being held accountable. It certainly doesn't begin and end with Woods.
I know you can play "what if" scenarios a million different ways (the joys of the offseason
) but I do think we will know a great deal after this year, especially if Cook flounders.
I guess, although if Cook flounders, I'd place the vast majority of responsibility for that on Cook.
I guess I'm just reluctant to play the blame game to a very significant level with a position coach like Woods, who has been with the team through multiple defensive coordinators. Leslie Frazier clearly must think Woods knows what he's doing and as you said, finger pointing is difficult. I find it especially difficult since I believe players themselves bear the vast majority of responsibility for their performance. That isn't to say coaching doesn't matter because it obviously matters but when a player fails, it's hard to know
why he failed and when a player is successful (particularly if he was already a recognized talent when he joined the team) there's a tendency to just say, "Oh, well that guy was already good. He didn't need coaching". Consequently, when a player like Winfield says Woods really helped his game take off, I'm inclined to give that a lot of weight.
Re: Chris Cook article
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 5:54 pm
by King James
Mothman wrote:
At what point is the DB himself responsible for "looking pretty shabby"?
By the way, the assertion that Woods was on Tice's staff didn't sound right to me so I checked and he wasn't on Tice's staff. He came to the Vikes with Tomlin in 2006, after coaching with him in Tampa Bay in 2005.
It happens all the time. Not saying it happens to everyone but some DBs or any player get distracted. Sometimes because of off-field issues or an injury that they're not confident in playing in. Sometimes they just have an off game. At that point is up to the DB coach to find out what the problem is because after all thats his job. It seems different in the NFL though because some players who start to stink after putting up a good season or two manage to stay glued to the roster no matter what.
Re: Chris Cook article
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 6:44 pm
by The Breeze
Personally, I'm just happy that Cook has had no further domestic issues. Would have been easy to kick that kid to the curb a couple yrs ago and move on. But they invested a lot in him and supported him....now he owes the team to keep his nose clean and put his talent together in a big year. I'm rooting for him to do well and be a good leader on the field.