Vikings Message Board.Com

I will say this, after watching Denver's defense completely shut down San Diego's offense my desire to have Ken Wisenhunt compeltely fell out of bed. They got owned in that game. I would say that Zimmer's recent playoff loss can mostly be attributed to Andy Dalton. Yes you want to see his unit stiffen under pressure, but the QB turning the ball over like that will make you lose. Looks what happeend to Andrew Luck.

mansquatch wrote:I will say this, after watching Denver's defense completely shut down San Diego's offense my desire to have Ken Wisenhunt compeltely fell out of bed.

Not that I'm a Wisenhunt fan either way but isn't that a rather small sample size?

mansquatch wrote:I would say that Zimmer's recent playoff loss can mostly be attributed to Andy Dalton.

But Wisenhunt gets no such consideration for external-to-him factors?

mansquatch wrote:Yes you want to see his unit stiffen under pressure...

Uh .... never mind!

Whisenhunt fell flat on his face when Warner retired. Denny set up that ARZ team that had THREE 1,000 yard WRs and a soon to be HOF QB. His eye for QBs is questionable and he was gifted with Rivers this year. He'd fit in DET where they have an offense in place.

NextQuestion wrote:Whisenhunt fell flat on his face when Warner retired. Denny set up that ARZ team that had THREE 1,000 yard WRs and a soon to be HOF QB. His eye for QBs is questionable and he was gifted with Rivers this year. He'd fit in DET where they have an offense in place.

I wouldn't say he was "gifted Rivers this year." Rivers was playing awful and like a guy about ready to retire until "Whiz" showed up. Rivers did a complete 180 and I'd be surprised if he didn't win "Comeback Player of the Year," thanks largely to Whisenhunt's offense/coaching. I can't imagine him going anywhere but Detroit.

NextQuestion wrote:Whisenhunt fell flat on his face when Warner retired. Denny set up that ARZ team that had THREE 1,000 yard WRs and a soon to be HOF QB. His eye for QBs is questionable and he was gifted with Rivers this year. He'd fit in DET where they have an offense in place.

It seems like everybody's eye for QBs looks questionable until they get one that sticks.

If I remember correctly, the Cardinals had some cap problems in addition to Warner retiring. I think they lost Boldin and some other key players around the same time.

Anyway, all that speaks to is the importance of talent. The NFL is a talent-driven league. Coaches don't succeed without talented teams and they rarely last or win consistently without a good QB running their offense. There seems to be a segment of Vikings fandom that wants a coordinator who has been successful without a lot of talent on his roster or a coach who was successful without a talented team. I see comments like that over and over again but nobody ever seems to be able to answer the question:

Who are these coaches that succeed without good talent? Where are they coaching?

Texas Vike wrote: Conversely, what I hear from 49er fans about Roman is along the lines of "please DO take him from us!"

We felt that way about Gruden and it's obvious he is a poor shot caller and tries to force his way of thinking over the skill set and talents of the players.

Mothman wrote:
Who are these coaches that succeed without good talent? Where are they coaching?

The best coaches know how to spot talent, acquire it, and channel it into their system. They know where they absolutely MUST have top level talent (QB) and where they can use 2nd and 3rd tier guys to get it done. I'd point to Belichek (sp?), as much as I dislike him, as a guy who does all that.

Texas Vike wrote: The best coaches know how to spot talent, acquire it, and channel it into their system. They know where they absolutely MUST have top level talent (QB) and where they can use 2nd and 3rd tier guys to get it done. I'd point to Belichek (sp?), as much as I dislike him, as a guy who does all that.

He's also a coach who is in position to do that and he's a pretty extraordinary example. Not all coaches have so much influence and authority and let's face it, spotting talent, acquiring it, keeping it, etc. usually takes a lot more than just a good coach. Success in those areas is a consequence of good scouting, good cap management, etc.

Anyway, although I agree that the best coaches are good at spotting talent and getting the most of it, your response doesn't really answer my question. Coaches who successfully do what you're talking about still win with a great deal of talent on their rosters. I'm asking about these coaches who supposedly succeed without so much talent because the arguments I see used against coaches who have that talent available to them would apply to Belichick too. Heck, I'm sure we've all heard someone question where he would be without Brady.

Mothman wrote: He's also a coach who is in position to do that and he's a pretty extraordinary example. Not all coaches have so much influence and authority and let's face it, spotting talent, acquiring it, keeping it, etc. usually takes a lot more than just a good coach. Success in those areas is a consequence of good scouting, good cap management, etc.

Anyway, although I agree that the best coaches are good at spotting talent and getting the most of it, your response doesn't really answer my question. Coaches who successfully do what you're talking about still win with a great deal of talent on their rosters. I'm asking about these coaches who supposedly succeed without so much talent because the arguments I see used against coaches who have that talent available to them would apply to Belichick too. Heck, I'm sure we've all heard someone question where he would be without Brady.

In all honesty, Moth, I wasn't trying to resolve your enigmatic question in any definitive way. It likely doesn't have a satisfactory answer, after all. But it does seem to me that Belichek gets a lot out of marginal talent at certain positions and knows where he can "get by" with less talent and where he absolutely MUST have top tier talent. Let's hope that whomever we bring in as HC can execute things similarly.

mondry wrote: This is what I like most about Zimmer, although there is a lot to like all over, every where you look, Bengals fans mention things like this. If some team wanted to hire Musgrave or Williams (god help them if they did but hypothetical) I'd be like "hurray I can't believe someone is taking this clown off our hands!" But with Zimmer it's always "no don't take him from us!" and "he's super respected by just about everyone, including his players!" kind of comments.

Musgrave was not the problem with the offense. If you have a garbage QB, you shorten the playbook. When Cassel was at the helm late in the season the offense wasn't too bad.

Texas Vike wrote:In all honesty, Moth, I wasn't trying to resolve your enigmatic question in any definitive way. It likely doesn't have a satisfactory answer, after all. But it does seem to me that Belichek gets a lot out of marginal talent at certain positions and knows where he can "get by" with less talent and where he absolutely MUST have top tier talent. Let's hope that whomever we bring in as HC can execute things similarly.

I hope so! If that's going to happen I think it will be crucial for Spielman and the head coach to be on the same page.

I think Belichick understands where games are won and lost: at QB and at the line of scrimmage. Honestly, I think most coaches understand that but Belichick excels at getting the most out of the talent available to him. Brady is a huge part of that but there's much more to it.

BB seems to have a good eye for quality assistant coaches as well. Like him or not, the guy is one of the all-time great coaches.

As for my question... I think you're right that it probably doesn't have a satisfactory answer (which is obviously the point).

Mothman wrote:Anyway, although I agree that the best coaches are good at spotting talent and getting the most of it, your response doesn't really answer my question. Coaches who successfully do what you're talking about still win with a great deal of talent on their rosters.

Have you REALLY looked at who NE is putting on the field this year? I'm with Texas on this one, Bellichick and his staff are the poster boys for "coaching up" players that a LOT of teams discard or ignore as "not that talented".
There are other examples. I hate to say it but GB gets a lot out of their players. Seattle comes to mind. Philadelphia. Kansas City. San Diego.

For some reason I get the odd feeling that you believe "player talent" is a constant - when a player joins a team he is say a "7 of 10" and the coaches have no influence on that player turning into a 5 or a 9.

I happen to believe coaches have a HUGE influence on what folks perceive of as "player talent". Examples abound. From Brady to Blount to Russell Wilson to Jordy Nelson to Tamba Hali to Keenan Allen. Not to turn this into a Frazier thing, but for example the list goes on and on of players that I have no doubt whatsoever that Frazier and staff would have done a far worse job with than their current coaches.

While Frazier was not blessed with the most talented team walking in the door, IMO he is worlds away from the coaches named above that have a history of developing talent.

So there are absolutely coaches out there - and they are almost always successful - that develop the talent they are given. Fans are hoping for that type of coach for our team, obviously.

Then you are probably looking for someone from the Parcells line.

Ummm.....

https://twitter.com/CommonManKFAN