Vikings Message Board.Com

MelanieMFunk wrote:

And when another hole or two opens up because he has no plan for those positions? He'll be filling holes every year and never assembling an entire team. Like he's been doing already...

Demi wrote: And when another hole or two opens up because he has no plan for those positions? He'll be filling holes every year and never assembling an entire team. Like he's been doing already...

How many teams don't have a hole or two?

Mothman wrote: 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...

Just re-watched the play on game rewind like 25 times, we miss 2 big blocks on this play when they rush 6 while keeping 7 in to block. The odd thing is, I can't really figure out who to blame on this one. Sullivan comes out of his stance to try and block the guy on his right, giving a free pass to the guy right up the middle. I think this is by design because Toby immediately darts towards the middle to pick that guy up off the snap while paying zero attention to the extra rusher on the right side. It's worth mentioning that he fails miserably. In the mean time, Loadholt and the right guard block the guys directly in front of them, again leaving the outside rusher unaccounted for.

What I -think- they were trying to do is give the guy up the middle a free pass and have toby pick him up. Sullivan would block the guy in front of the right guard while the guard slides over and takes loadholt's man, then loadholt would pick up the outside rusher. Maybe that's an execution thing but this honestly seems like a bad blocking call or assignments or whatever it is you call it for the offensive line. It seems much more simpler to me anyway to just have sullivan clog up the defender in the middle, the guard and RT block the two in front of them, and then have Gerhart pick up the free rusher on the right.

There doesn't seem to be a hot route either for Cassel to go in this kind of disaster. All the Wr's still have their backs turned running deeper routes when he needs a target it seems like. If you have game rewind (i think you do right?) check this play out and see if you come to the conclusion I did about the blocking.

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.

No they don't rely on those extremes, they just use them every now and then. I'm just not that sure about the end of that statement though. As we've seen, even a 20 yard pass in the air can turn into that 39 yard touch down when the defender is beat that badly. I don't think it's that easy to defend 1-20 yards down the field, even if you knew it was coming.

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.

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.

haha, well their's a chance. My opinion is that it's probably about 20%, or 1 in 5 of those would get completed. I'm not sure it's worth it.

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?

Sorry, I mean, one extreme or the other when it comes to satisfying a fans opinion. Like if I complain about running too much on first down I should be satisfied they called a low percentage play action bomb. When really, I don't like either call and would prefer something in the intermediate range. As you mention yourself, our QB's have a 60% completion rate on those other passes but my guess is it's NOT 60% on deep bombs.

Speaking of that first series, watching that 3rd and 6 play again, I think a screen pass there would have destroyed that blitz. Sully let's his guy go by anyway and Gerhart fails to block him, he could have slipped by and caught the dump off. Both CB's and both safeties back pedal way out of the screen with the WR's. Cassel would have just had to drop a little further back to buy more time and let gerhart slip out and I think it could have worked hehe. Captain Hindsight though.

The second series, well I think that 8 yard run is a pretty unlikely occurrence, that's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for on 2nd and 10 and running the ball. I think most of the time you can expect that to play out as 3rd and 6+. Other than that, it looks like Ford just drops it. Obviously the main thing I don't like about that series is the wasted first down play. Go ahead and watch that one too if you want and let me know what you honestly think the chance of success is on that one.

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.

Well like I said I think the 8 yard run is over achieving on that play, but yes ford just dropped it. Had they picked up 2 yards on that first down play, the peterson run would have been a first down!

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?

If I'm extremely blunt, I'd say it's okay to run the ball when the conditions favor running the ball. In order to get those conditions you have to be able to pass effectively or bench Adrian Peterson. Every team we play our opponent goes into the game thinking they HAVE to stop AD first and foremost. That means we have to pass them out of that mentality, though as long as they're in that mentality, running is usually ineffective.

It's okay to run the ball when you haven't made it a pattern of running the ball. So to address your first down question, it's okay to run the ball on first down if you haven't run the ball on first down in a while, however, if the conditions are not favorable, you still probably don't want to run the ball again. (9 in the box) If you've run the ball 3 times in a row on first down, it's not a great idea to run the ball again on first down.

I'd say I'd only run the ball about 2 out of 5 plays, or if we play 70 snaps, 30 carries for the running back seems reasonable to me. In the WCO, short passes often replace direct carries for the RB. Obviously that is just the "default" idea. If your opponent is giving you 7 in the box then run like theirs no tomorrow. If they're the 32nd ranked rush defense and 1st ranked pass defense then run all you want.

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 in those first two series there are 2 examples of bad play calling and 2 examples of poor execution. I think it's bad to start the game with a run, run, pass sequence with the other team gunning for Peterson. I also feel on the 3rd down play the blocking could have been executed better. In the 2nd series, I think that first down play call was terrible, but Ford dropping the 3rd down pass is an execution thing. It's both sides being bad that leads to a 4-10-1 record, not one or the other.

Demi wrote: And when another hole or two opens up because he has no plan for those positions? He'll be filling holes every year and never assembling an entire team. Like he's been doing already...

Another over-reaction. Every team in the NFL has holes. That's why teams sign free agents and draft players....to fill holes. That's a pretty universal thing.

And as I told you multiple times before, within the last two years as GM he has filled holes at LT, FS, multiple WR positions, 3-tech DT, CB, FB, 2nd string QB and TE, K, P, and has added depth in later rounds. He has also retained our own players during free agency so he didn't open other holes.

....now you're saying he's left holes open for so long. So let's rewind a bit.... Let's just say instead of assessing LT, FS, and WR when he did, Spielman decides to go after NT, LB and LG instead. Now if this happened, what would you be complaining about right now?? My guess is, it would be LT, FS, and WR and you would be saying he's let those positions slide for a while now.

What you're not understanding is that Spielman is going through a FULL rebuild which takes at least 3 years. When you're going through something like that, you can only address so many needs at one time. I mean I think it's pretty clear he will fill these holes this offseason.

I mean back in 2012, I'm sure Spielman understood that the holes we have now, weren't really positions of strength back then but he had to focus on IMMEDIATE needs. Back then, I'm sure he figured that guys like Charlie Johnson, Henderson, Greenway, etc. could last a few more years. I mean could you imagine this team with a below average LT for the last two years, or not having Smith and having some bum paired up with Jamarca Sanford? Or what about not having Patterson, Jennings, or Harvin on this team. You're not taking any of this into consideration and you clearly need to. Let the guy fill these current holes, get a new coaching staff in here, and watch one of the youngest teams in the league start to blossom.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:If we were so "overmatched", then how do these guys manage to beat teams like Philly, Pitt, and Chicago???

I didn't say they were overmatched against everybody and had the worst roster in the league. As I said earlier in the thread, I think overall, the Vikings have low-to-mid-level NFL talent. They can compete against most teams but their margin for error is slim and they're going to end up in a lot of close games, especially with instability at the QB position.

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.

Don't kid yourself. The way they used Peterson down the stretch last season was absolutely an adjustment. They found creative, effective ways to utilize their best weapon and win games after Harvin went down and the offense was struggling to find balance. Musgrave's play designs and playcalling helped AD gain so many yards. Sure, AD did most of the work. Players always do most of the work but that's the point here, isn't it? Coaches call plays but the players make them succeed or fail on the field. It's unfair to say AD makes the coaches look good but hold the coaches responsible when players make them look bad. It works both ways.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 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.

I agree, but all you've just done is reinforce the point I've been making in this thread. there are serious talent issues on this team at all of the positions you named above. What team wins consistently with that many holes/problem areas? You might as well include safety in that mix too because the Vikes basically have one quality starter at that position and a bunch of backups borderline starters. That gives them good depth but not enough impact at the top.

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

Again, I said they have low-to-mid-level NFL talent, not little talent at all and I'm talking about a comparative level of talent. Every team in the league has talent! Just to be clear, when I talk about talent, I'm talking about a mix of physical talent, experience and leadership that can win consistently, not just raw ability.

mondry wrote:Just re-watched the play on game rewind like 25 times, we miss 2 big blocks on this play when they rush 6 while keeping 7 in to block. The odd thing is, I can't really figure out who to blame on this one. Sullivan comes out of his stance to try and block the guy on his right, giving a free pass to the guy right up the middle. I think this is by design because Toby immediately darts towards the middle to pick that guy up off the snap while paying zero attention to the extra rusher on the right side. It's worth mentioning that he fails miserably. In the mean time, Loadholt and the right guard block the guys directly in front of them, again leaving the outside rusher unaccounted for.

What I -think- they were trying to do is give the guy up the middle a free pass and have toby pick him up. Sullivan would block the guy in front of the right guard while the guard slides over and takes loadholt's man, then loadholt would pick up the outside rusher. Maybe that's an execution thing but this honestly seems like a bad blocking call or assignments or whatever it is you call it for the offensive line. It seems much more simpler to me anyway to just have sullivan clog up the defender in the middle, the guard and RT block the two in front of them, and then have Gerhart pick up the free rusher on the right.

There doesn't seem to be a hot route either for Cassel to go in this kind of disaster. All the Wr's still have their backs turned running deeper routes when he needs a target it seems like. If you have game rewind (i think you do right?) check this play out and see if you come to the conclusion I did about the blocking.

I did. However, coaches film wasn't available yet so I couldn't see what was happening with the routes.

It's possible that Cassel was supposed to account for that blocker. I've often heard former players and broadcasters talk about how the QB is responsible for the extra defender. In other words, he's supposed to see the unblocked man and get rid of the ball.

Whatever was supposed to happen from the Vikings POV, the Bengals clearly got the best of them on that play!

No they don't rely on those extremes, they just use them every now and then. I'm just not that sure about the end of that statement though. As we've seen, even a 20 yard pass in the air can turn into that 39 yard touch down when the defender is beat that badly. I don't think it's that easy to defend 1-20 yards down the field, even if you knew it was coming.

It gets easier when the defense doesn't have to worry about getting beaten over the top. That's why speedsters who can stretch the field and burn a defense deep are considered so valuable. If all a defense has to defend is passes 20 yards and under and the run, they can tighten up zones and make it very difficult for an offense to sustain drives.

haha, well their's a chance. My opinion is that it's probably about 20%, or 1 in 5 of those would get completed. I'm not sure it's worth it.

I had to call you on that.

Sorry, I mean, one extreme or the other when it comes to satisfying a fans opinion. Like if I complain about running too much on first down I should be satisfied they called a low percentage play action bomb. When really, I don't like either call and would prefer something in the intermediate range. As you mention yourself, our QB's have a 60% completion rate on those other passes but my guess is it's NOT 60% on deep bombs.

No, it's not but as I said above, you need to call some of those plays to keep the defense from tightening up and taking away that intermediate passing game.

Speaking of that first series, watching that 3rd and 6 play again, I think a screen pass there would have destroyed that blitz. Sully let's his guy go by anyway and Gerhart fails to block him, he could have slipped by and caught the dump off. Both CB's and both safeties back pedal way out of the screen with the WR's. Cassel would have just had to drop a little further back to buy more time and let gerhart slip out and I think it could have worked hehe. Captain Hindsight though.

It might have worked but if that pass rusher who nailed Cassel had read the play, he might have blown it up. I wish they'd had a screen called. It would have had a better chance to succeed than what they tried to do.

The second series, well I think that 8 yard run is a pretty unlikely occurrence, that's pretty much the best outcome you can hope for on 2nd and 10 and running the ball. I think most of the time you can expect that to play out as 3rd and 6+. Other than that, it looks like Ford just drops it. Obviously the main thing I don't like about that series is the wasted first down play. Go ahead and watch that one too if you want and let me know what you honestly think the chance of success is on that one.

It didn't really come close to succeeding but that's in hindsight. there's no way for Musgrave to know how it will turn out when he calls it. The bottom line on that series is the playcalling didn't in any way inhibit them from picking up a first down.

Well like I said I think the 8 yard run is over achieving on that play, but yes ford just dropped it. Had they picked up 2 yards on that first down play, the peterson run would have been a first down!

You're right to use the evil emoticon there!

The 8 yard run is a very positive outcome on second down but keep in mind, Musgrave knows Peterson is capable of that or a much bigger gain. That's why he's a big part of their offense and why they sometimes give him the ball in situations like that.

If I'm extremely blunt, I'd say it's okay to run the ball when the conditions favor running the ball. In order to get those conditions you have to be able to pass effectively or bench Adrian Peterson. Every team we play our opponent goes into the game thinking they HAVE to stop AD first and foremost. That means we have to pass them out of that mentality, though as long as they're in that mentality, running is usually ineffective.

It's okay to run the ball when you haven't made it a pattern of running the ball. So to address your first down question, it's okay to run the ball on first down if you haven't run the ball on first down in a while, however, if the conditions are not favorable, you still probably don't want to run the ball again. (9 in the box) If you've run the ball 3 times in a row on first down, it's not a great idea to run the ball again on first down.

I'd say I'd only run the ball about 2 out of 5 plays, or if we play 70 snaps, 30 carries for the running back seems reasonable to me. In the WCO, short passes often replace direct carries for the RB. Obviously that is just the "default" idea. If your opponent is giving you 7 in the box then run like theirs no tomorrow. If they're the 32nd ranked rush defense and 1st ranked pass defense then run all you want.

I'd have to check the numbers but that approach doesn't sound far afield from what the Vikings actually do. It seems to me that when they run more than that, it's usually because their running game is effective. I definitely think it's a mistake to fall into a pattern of running the ball that's too predictable and I agree that Musgrave is guilty of that at times.

Mothman wrote:
I'd have to check the numbers but that approach doesn't sound far afield from what the Vikings actually do. It seems to me that when they run more than that, it's usually because their running game is effective. I definitely think it's a mistake to fall into a pattern of running the ball that's too predictable and I agree that Musgrave is guilty of that at times.

I think if you just look at the end of game stats it probably isn't that far off most of the time. But I'm not sure they would tell the exact story of a balanced offense. I think there a decent amount of games where we'll put a lot of emphasis on trying to run the ball early and build up say a 15 carries to 8-10 passes ratio, then if the run isn't being effective, or circumstances change (we fall behind, 2 minute drill, etc) they begin to pass more and it balances out.

What you're not understanding is that Spielman is going through a FULL rebuild which takes at least 3 years.

He's had control of 3 drafts now. He'd had control of the roster for 2~. Shouldn't we be a little further along in this rebuild? Instead of a 5 win team with massive gaping holes at a number of positions, past their prime veterans at others, and a lack of depth pretty much everywhere?

Demi wrote: He's had control of 3 drafts now. He'd had control of the roster for 2~. Shouldn't we be a little further along in this rebuild? Instead of a 5 win team with massive gaping holes at a number of positions, past their prime veterans at others, and a lack of depth pretty much everywhere?

I think we're doing fine as far as the rebuild goes. Childress and the 2010 ALL IN left this team with NOTHING. Look at that 2011 roster on wikipedia, literally no depth, no QB even under contract unless you count joe webb, no young players developing. Everyone is either old and over paid starter or over paid depth in case the starter gets hurt so it doesn't de-rail our all in season. When it comes to the draft we're trading up to take Gerhart because god forbid Peterson gets hurt and ends our season. Certain players right now still make too much money for what they bring to the table and it takes time to undo those ridiculously long / big contracts.

An NFL team is constantly aging and constantly needs to be infused with new talent. Even now we're still recovering because old guys like Winfield are retiring, this next off season it will be Allen and K.will. After that it will be Greenway and Robison. Though Allen will probably play another contract some where else you get the idea. I think Pondering her Percy makes an excellent point, if we don't draft Kalil and Rudolph to get a LB and NT it'd be the exact same thing except how we've ignored the LT and TE spots and people would probably even say Ponder is fine he just needs better protection and weapons!

Ponder busting is about the most negative thing I can say about the rebuild. As I mentioned, we had no QB under contract on the roster so we had an extreme need at QB. The reach on Ponder was a big mistake but at the same time I can certainly understand what happened.

I think Pondering her Percy makes an excellent point, if we don't draft Kalil and Rudolph to get a LB and NT it'd be the exact same thing except how we've ignored the LT and TE spots and people would probably even say Ponder is fine he just needs better protection and weapons!

How about, god forbid...finding some talent outside the first round or two? Maybe stumbling on a NT or LB who's good enough to contribute as a starting NFL linebacker at some point? We have one competent linebacker and that's Greenway. And he's over 30 now. We couldn't stumble another since he was drafted seven years ago? Corner? Safety? Maybe a mid round linebacker, corner, or safety we could count on in the last 3~ years? Even before he was GM, what was he doing as vice president of player personnel for five years? Oh that's right we've got a couple rookies from this draft just being groomed to take over.

Demi wrote: How about, god forbid...finding some talent outside the first round or two? Maybe stumbling on a NT or LB who's good enough to contribute as a starting NFL linebacker at some point? We have one competent linebacker and that's Greenway. And he's over 30 now. We couldn't stumble another since he was drafted seven years ago? Corner? Safety? Maybe a mid round linebacker, corner, or safety we could count on in the last 3~ years? Even before he was GM, what was he doing as vice president of player personnel for five years? Oh that's right we've got a couple rookies from this draft just being groomed to take over.

He did draft a mid-round LB this past year and a late one as well. It's not often where 4-7 round rookies come in and all of the sudden become studs. It takes a few years but I can see you have no patience when it comes to the rebuilding process.

Also...Spielman has been this teams GM for two years. Prior to that, none of us have any clue how much control he really had. Unless you were in the draft room witnessing everything go down, you don't know how much control he actually had. Hence, why I think its better to focus on the last two years.

But....if you want to go the other route and talk about late rounders that "Spielman" has brought in since he's been here we can:
2007: Round 4- Brian Robison
2008: Round 5- Letroy Guion, Round 6- John Sullivan
2009: Round 5- Jasper Brinkley, Round 7- Jamarca Sanford
2010: Round 4- Everson Griffen
2011: Round 6- Mistral Raymond and Brandon Fusco
2012: Round 4- Jarius Wright, Round 6- Blair Walsh, Round 7- Audie Cole
2013: TBD

I mean if you really want to say he was in control over those years.....then there ^ is your answer. He has brought in at least one late rounder every year that has been a decent-solid contributor. If you want to say he's only been in control the last two years, then he brought in some late round talent last year and this years is TBD. I mean if Rhodes, Patterson, and even Floyd are FINALLY starting to see playing time, do you really think a guy like Mike Mauti or Gerald Hodges is just going to come in and light the league on fire?? No. You have to be patient with guys like that. Mauti was a projected 1-2 rounder before the injuries. He an unbelievable leader, was a stud at Penn State and is a possible sleeper for us. Mike Mayock also said that Hodges was "a starting WILL LB all day" after we drafted him. But with this clueless coaching staff, who knows what we have in him or Mauti. I sure can tell you that Leslie has zero clue. Just like he didn't have a clue about any of those other guys that filled in for injuries and suspensions. Either way you go, that corrected the false statement that you gave above.

demi its clear you need to be the gm since you have all the answers. spielman's last 5 picks have been money he probably couldn't have done any better. patterson will be one of the best receivers in football once he gets a qb. his hands and route running will develop, but his talent is undeniable that should be plainly obvious. the team was at rock bottom after favre left these things take time. and regardless of what these idiot draft analysts say this crop of qbs in the upcoming draft suck. they are all overrated, but at least manziel has proven he can win but he won't be around when we pick anyway. we had to tie an utterly useless game, which was no different from the washington win that cost us multiple draft picks and peterson's knee. hindsight is always clear, but favre should have never came back and the rebuilding should have started then and we would be much better off. but, even with that said, frazier has been a terrible head coach. anyone can hand the ball to peterson and watch him run for 2,000 plus yards. the sad part is if they had an semblance of a passing game he would have easily beaten dickerson's record.

I am a huge Phoenix Suns fan. Their past couple of seasons mirror what has happened for the vikes this year. I know the NBA is different animal...but the impact of the GM/HC relationship is huge in every sport.

Here is a great article on that dynamic and an example of how I would love to see this owner run this team:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/suns--surp ... 10267.html

Pondering Her Percy wrote: 2007: Round 4- Brian Robison
2008: Round 5- Letroy Guion, Round 6- John Sullivan
2009: Round 5- Jasper Brinkley, Round 7- Jamarca Sanford
2010: Round 4- Everson Griffen
2011: Round 6- Mistral Raymond and Brandon Fusco
2012: Round 4- Jarius Wright, Round 6- Blair Walsh, Round 7- Audie Cole
2013: TBD

You really think this list of players supports your argument that Spielman rocks and Frazier and staff are garbage. I see at best a list of players whose upside is lower tier NFL talent with a few exceptions (Sullivan, Wright, Walsh). Did you consider even for a moment the possibility that Frazier and staff have done a good job of making marginal NFL talent (Erin Henderson, Audie Cole) look serviceable in games. At the end of the day, this is likely the worst defense in terms of points allowed in Vikings history. I don't know the football x's and o's. But I know Rick Spielman has had a key role in decision making going back to June 2006 before Childress first season. I find it funny that many on this Board give Coaches zero credit for seasons like 2008 and 2009 and 2012 but give Speilman a free pass on seasons like 2010, 2011, and 2013. It's time to make a fresh start. Otherwise, Spielman hires a lower tier coach because he's a weak GM at this point, on thin ice. And the team continues a path with upside being lower tier NFL performance. I don't want to see it anymore. Sorry.