Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:59 pm Here's the short version of my previous post:

At this point, in Spielman's 8th year as GM and Zimmer's 6th season as head coach, I find it difficult to focus exclusively on game-to-game problems when the chronic, overarching issues are so readily apparent. We can analyze the specifics of individual performances from week to week but the bottom line is the people in charge haven't built this team into the powerhouse it needs to be and persistent problems that run through the entire timeline indicate coaching/management issues.

I keep thinking, what is the difference between a Superbowl contending team and one that falls short?

Take the 2009 Vikings that finished 12-4 and came within a hair of the Superbowl. Next year, same coach, many of the same players, but not even close to the Superbowl at the end.

Or take the 2017 Vikings that finished 13-3 and made a nominal appearance in the NFC Championship Game that year. Next year, same coach, many of the same players (with a notable change at QB), and once again, not even close to the Superbowl at the end.

While a lot of other factors outside of those teams contributed to that change in fortunes year-to-year, it's hard to argue that so much changed within the composition of those teams that the drop-off can be explained by that. Maybe the rest of the division and the NFL just got that much better?

Is it as simple as the QB play got worse? 2010 Favre and 2009 Favre were completely different QBs. 2009 Favre was on a mission, mostly to spite the Packers it seemed, while 2010 Favre had to be guilt-tripped out of retirement and never seemed like he wanted to be there in 2010.

2017 Minnesota ended up starting a guy who probably never thought he'd see another meaningful snap in the NFL. Case Keenum had no expectations and nothing to lose and he played like it. In fact, it was only towards the end of that season when the weight of the games increased that he started to play like he felt the pressure, and of course, that was when things went south for the team overall. It started in the 2nd half of the game against the Saints and exploded in the game against the Eagles.

2018 Minnesota makes a move for Cousins, and we've all seen how that turned out.

I guess what I'm trying to drive at is, are these sub-par performances of teams with largely the same talent and lots of continuity tied tightly to the QB play the team gets? Maybe Spielman has built an overall team that is capable of winning and getting to the Superbowl. On paper, it sure as heck looks like it on both sides of the ball (minus the Vikings offensive line, of course). Maybe Zimmer's overall effect on the outcome and relative preparation and intensity level of his team isn't a first-order effect any more than Brad Childress had that effect.

For me, this really goes back to the on field leadership shown by particular players on both sides of the ball. If its there, if there are guys who become those guys the other guys look to for their lead, either in terms of preparation, intensity, or guidance during the heat of battle, that raises the level of play just that much, which in a league filled with great individual athletes, dedicated game plans, and lots of money, ultimately is the difference between winning and losing in the bigger games.

If that's true, sure, we can criticize Spielman all day, and Zimmer too, and the OC and DC and anyone else who sits on the sidelines and ultimately watches the battle on the field unfold just like every fan. But to make it better, the team has to find its player leaders, and those leaders have to be the ones who wring those last precious drops of intensity, effort and execution out of the latent talent of all of those individual players sweating beside them on every snap.

The logical answer? Bench Cousins if he can't step up. Too nice, too much thinking, too afraid to fail, etc. Whatever it is, if he's holding the offense back because he can't lead his unit, bench him and find a QB who isn't afraid to lead, to be vocal, to hold himself and everyone around him accountable, and, most importantly, who really *wants* to be out there. Even if he's getting pounded into the group every other play - he *wants* to be out there and he *will* make everyone around him better.

Defensively, the Vikings also lack that guy. They have some great players, but nobody like a Khalil Mack who just freakin' sets the tone for everyone else. I can't recall the last time I saw anyone on this Vikings defense set the tone for everyone else. In fact, when the going gets rough, they seem to clench up and get stiff. I don't see many chances being taken, nor inspiring plays being made. They're technically competent, but they seem to lack soul and passion about what they do. Maybe Kendricks has shown some of that recently, but I'm not sure how vocal he is. He's holding himself to a very high standard and I love the way he plays, but I'm still waiting for signs that other players are going to respond to that.

I guess the short of it is, you can have the most loaded and talented team, but on offense, if you don't have an on-field leader at QB, you're not going to beat many good teams. On defense, you're going to show up in the stats maybe, and everyone will agree you're "good", but without an on-field leader, that unit won't be the difference either. They'll come up short too, especially when it really matters.

Jim, I actually agree with most of your post and your position on things. I'm adding this because I think there is more to the story than just the people who ultimately watch from the sidelines. The Vikings are missing their player leaders on both sides of the ball. If they can find those, I think this team looks a lot better.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:14 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:19 pm

I saw it on Vikings.com. Maybe it was from there. Don’t know, don’t care. I’m talking in regards to the “time to throw stat”. It’s a crock of shi#

It is a crock of sh## only because you don't like what it says about your QB.

Lol yeah that’s what it is. No it’s because that stat takes zero into consideration. It’s literally hitting a stop watch. It also doesn’t take into consideration that cousins is under center more than any QB in the nfl so in passing situations, his drop back takes longer than normal. If you’re taking a 7 step drop from under center, you don’t throw within that 7 steps. Very rarely. So that’s just another reason it looks like cousins is “holding the ball too long”. When you look at those sacks, which you continue to ignore and just gloat about the little stat you found, he had VERY little time to do anything. Getting to the back of his drop and not even having a chance to scan the field. You don’t look at that. You look at your stat that you’re holding onto for dear life. And it’s exactly why I question you and your actual knowledge of football. I think it’s more so your dislike for cousins that gets in the way of any knowledge you do have about the game

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:59 pmI keep thinking, what is the difference between a Superbowl contending team and one that falls short?

Take the 2009 Vikings that finished 12-4 and came within a hair of the Superbowl. Next year, same coach, many of the same players, but not even close to the Superbowl at the end.

Or take the 2017 Vikings that finished 13-3 and made a nominal appearance in the NFC Championship Game that year. Next year, same coach, many of the same players (with a notable change at QB), and once again, not even close to the Superbowl at the end.

While a lot of other factors outside of those teams contributed to that change in fortunes year-to-year, it's hard to argue that so much changed within the composition of those teams that the drop-off can be explained by that. Maybe the rest of the division and the NFL just got that much better?

Is it as simple as the QB play got worse? 2010 Favre and 2009 Favre were completely different QBs. 2009 Favre was on a mission, mostly to spite the Packers it seemed, while 2010 Favre had to be guilt-tripped out of retirement and never seemed like he wanted to be there in 2010.

He certainly wasn't the same player. A lot of factors contributed to their rapid decline that season. Favre was never really healthy. Cedric Griffen ended up on IR pretty early in the season. Rice, who was a key factor in the team's success in 2009, missed the first half of the season. They replaced Taylor with Gerhart. They added Moss and that seemed disruptive to team chemistry. Their was clearly tension between the players and Childress. Age was catching up to them at a few positions. It all seemed to add up to a very different team and season. Maybe schedule was a factor as well. The dynamics clearly shifted.

The logical answer? Bench Cousins if he can't step up. Too nice, too much thinking, too afraid to fail, etc. Whatever it is, if he's holding the offense back because he can't lead his unit, bench him and find a QB who isn't afraid to lead, to be vocal, to hold himself and everyone around him accountable, and, most importantly, who really *wants* to be out there. Even if he's getting pounded into the group every other play - he *wants* to be out there and he *will* make everyone around him better.

Defensively, the Vikings also lack that guy. They have some great players, but nobody like a Khalil Mack who just freakin' sets the tone for everyone else. I can't recall the last time I saw anyone on this Vikings defense set the tone for everyone else. In fact, when the going gets rough, they seem to clench up and get stiff. I don't see many chances being taken, nor inspiring plays being made. They're technically competent, but they seem to lack soul and passion about what they do. Maybe Kendricks has shown some of that recently, but I'm not sure how vocal he is. He's holding himself to a very high standard and I love the way he plays, but I'm still waiting for signs that other players are going to respond to that.

I guess the short of it is, you can have the most loaded and talented team, but on offense, if you don't have an on-field leader at QB, you're not going to beat many good teams. On defense, you're going to show up in the stats maybe, and everyone will agree you're "good", but without an on-field leader, that unit won't be the difference either. They'll come up short too, especially when it really matters.

Jim, I actually agree with most of your post and your position on things. I'm adding this because I think there is more to the story than just the people who ultimately watch from the sidelines. The Vikings are missing their player leaders on both sides of the ball. If they can find those, I think this team looks a lot better.

Good post. I think on-field leadership definitely makes a difference. Add Russell Wilson and Khalil Mack to this team and it would probably have a huge impact. What you've written above actually fits nicely into what I've been saying about the GM and head coach, particularly the GM's role. The most common defense of Spielman tends to be that he's found a lot of talent. However, I've long contended that a GM's main job is team-building, not just stocking the roster with good players. A coach and GM need to be able to identify leaders. That has to be part of scouting, drafting and free agent acquisition. Building a champion is clearly about putting together a team with the right internal chemistry, not just a team with a lot of talent.

Mothman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 6:15 pm

Add Russell Wilson and Khalil Mack to this team and it would probably have a huge impact.

Zimmer would probably only have Mack blitz once in a blue moon, and use him in coverage the rest of the time. Because, you know....his system.

Vikings needed a competent QB to win vs CHI. No matter how ugly it was, a more efficient passing game and the Vikings should have won that game. As far as the D, they played their butts off. The Vikings D forced two turnovers that were nullified during the Bears first drive. 2 turnovers in one drive. CHI was dinking and dunking which is hard to defend with an accurate QB, esp on wet grass. Vikings D allowed only 6 points in the 2nd half, 3 coming off of Cousins turnover. Not counting the 1st FG in the 2nd half, the Vikings D only allowed 13 points which should be enough to win on any Sunday. Chase Daniel passed for 130 yds and 1 TD in the first half, meaning he only passed for 65 yds , 0TD in the 2nd half. Chicago averaged 2.2 yds/carry and only rushed for 72 yds total.

While everyone seems to be ready to blow up the team, I believe all this team needs is a better QB.

Not sure where to post this or why I'm posting it. Just refreshing to watch at the moment


https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesotavikin ... urce=share

808vikingsfan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:30 am Vikings needed a competent QB to win vs CHI. No matter how ugly it was, a more efficient passing game and the Vikings should have won that game. As far as the D, they played their butts off. The Vikings D forced two turnovers that were nullified during the Bears first drive. 2 turnovers in one drive. CHI was dinking and dunking which is hard to defend with an accurate QB, esp on wet grass. Vikings D allowed only 6 points in the 2nd half, 3 coming off of Cousins turnover. Not counting the 1st FG in the 2nd half, the Vikings D only allowed 13 points which should be enough to win on any Sunday. Chase Daniel passed for 130 yds and 1 TD in the first half, meaning he only passed for 65 yds , 0TD in the 2nd half. Chicago averaged 2.2 yds/carry and only rushed for 72 yds total.

While everyone seems to be ready to blow up the team, I believe all this team needs is a better QB.

I think if you're looking at the stats it's misleading how "well" the defense did. In the end they didn't actually get those turnovers because they had penalties (which is also the defenses fault). Their offense seemingly kept completing 3rd and 4th down when they needed it. Not to mention they were playing against the backup QB!

Cliff wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 am

808vikingsfan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:30 am Vikings needed a competent QB to win vs CHI. No matter how ugly it was, a more efficient passing game and the Vikings should have won that game. As far as the D, they played their butts off. The Vikings D forced two turnovers that were nullified during the Bears first drive. 2 turnovers in one drive. CHI was dinking and dunking which is hard to defend with an accurate QB, esp on wet grass. Vikings D allowed only 6 points in the 2nd half, 3 coming off of Cousins turnover. Not counting the 1st FG in the 2nd half, the Vikings D only allowed 13 points which should be enough to win on any Sunday. Chase Daniel passed for 130 yds and 1 TD in the first half, meaning he only passed for 65 yds , 0TD in the 2nd half. Chicago averaged 2.2 yds/carry and only rushed for 72 yds total.

While everyone seems to be ready to blow up the team, I believe all this team needs is a better QB.

I think if you're looking at the stats it's misleading how "well" the defense did. In the end they didn't actually get those turnovers because they had penalties (which is also the defenses fault). Their offense seemingly kept completing 3rd and 4th down when they needed it. Not to mention they were playing against the backup QB!

They were worse on third down than the Vikings.

Vikings also converted on a 4th and 8.

Cousins isn't a backup, but he plays like one.

Can we say the Bears D sucked Sunday too?

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:31 am

Cliff wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:36 am

I think if you're looking at the stats it's misleading how "well" the defense did. In the end they didn't actually get those turnovers because they had penalties (which is also the defenses fault). Their offense seemingly kept completing 3rd and 4th down when they needed it. Not to mention they were playing against the backup QB!

They were worse on third down than the Vikings.

Vikings also converted on a 4th and 8.

Cousins isn't a backup, but he plays like one.

Can we say the Bears D sucked Sunday too?

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is saying the Vikings defense "sucked". The point is simply that they contributed to the loss. The Bears had a nearly 11 minute advantage in time of possession. They converted 2 of 3 fourth down attempts. They opened the game with a long, nearly 8 minute TD drive that energized the crowd and put the Vikings at an immediate disadvantage. Their penalties negated good plays and as Cliff pointed out, they were playing against a backup QB and they didn't exactly make it a rough day for him.

It wasn't a lousy performance by any means. They played much better than the Vikings offense but they don't deserve a free pass.

Defense did ok they did their part at making adjustments and holding them to 13.

I think the Vikings offense failed at commanding the game. Everybody knew that the OL wouldn't be able to keep the Bears D at bay. They should of drew up quick pass plays and start taking what the defense gave them because even though it didn't look like it, they were some holes there.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:31 am Vikings also converted on a 4th and 8.

Just because I wanna be that guy... it was a 4th and 3.

Just read that Kirk is being pressured on 34% of his dropbacks which is 3rd worst behind Josh Allen and Deshaun Watson. Not really an excuse for his performance but I can at least understand why he's looking to check down every play when 1 out of every 3 pass plays is getting blown up by bad protection.

Seems like a very small percentage that a longer developing play will be successful considering that the line has to hold up, the WR has to get open, and Kirk has to make the right read.

TSonn wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:06 am

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:31 am Vikings also converted on a 4th and 8.

Just because I wanna be that guy... it was a 4th and 3.

Just read that Kirk is being pressured on 34% of his dropbacks which is 3rd worst behind Josh Allen and Deshaun Watson. Not really an excuse for his performance but I can at least understand why he's looking to check down every play when 1 out of every 3 pass plays is getting blown up by bad protection.

Seems like a very small percentage that a longer developing play will be successful considering that the line has to hold up, the WR has to get open, and Kirk has to make the right read.

Not sure why I thought it was 4th and 8, must be me proclivity to make Cousins look better than he actually is.

The pressure thing doesn't fly. He also had the 2nd longest time in the pocket of any QB in week 4. Not scrambling, not buying time, but just standing there looking for a receiver to throw too...and then checking down to Ham.

Mothman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:39 amMeh, time of possession disparity is as much on the offense as it is the defense.

They're both factors but the offensive performance alone can't account for the 11 minute discrepancy. If the defense gets the opposing offense off the field quickly, that discrepancy doesn't develop.

If the defense had that exact same game and the offense scores a TD on that Diggs fumble drive as well as their other TD drive, we are talking about the great job the D did on Sunday holding the Bears to 13 in a 14-13 victory. That is a fact.

It's definitively not a fact. Its conjecture.

There's been a culture of excuse-making for the Vikings defense ever since Zimmer was hired. It's ridiculous. That was a solid, unexceptional performance by the defense on Sunday, nothing more. It's not as if they held a powerhouse offense at full strength to 16 points. Why is it so freakin' hard to simply acknowledge that they contributed to the loss? There's no compelling reason to place that unit above criticism.

Mothman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:39 am It wasn't a lousy performance by any means. They played much better than the Vikings offense but they don't deserve a free pass.

This.

The defense wasn't special. They failed to create a game-altering play. The two "almosts" on the opening drive don't count, unfortunately.

The fact is, the Bear defense kept the Vikings offense completely off the scoreboard until late in the 4th. While that is a tall order for any defense at the pro level, if the Bear defense can do it, then it stands to reason the Vikings defense could too.

That they didn't doesn't mean they "sucked". Far from it. They played well enough to win had the offense done it's part. But, they weren't special, either. They didn't match the Bear defense.

It's the difference between good and great. Bears defense was great. Vikings defense was good, and in that game, good wasn't good enough.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:19 am The pressure thing doesn't fly. He also had the 2nd longest time in the pocket of any QB in week 4. Not scrambling, not buying time, but just standing there looking for a receiver to throw too...and then checking down to Ham.

I mean, I didn't make it up: https://twitter.com/CourtneyRCronin/sta ... 0194011140.

Didn't you watch that video of all of his pass attempts? It was clear that Kirk made some bad reads and he was also pressured quite a bit. I don't think it's an either/or situation - both things are clear issues.