Vikings Message Board.Com

This thread is to discuss potential coaching candidates for the Vikings (HC, OC, DC, ST). The purpose of this thread is to keep all 2014 potential coaching candidates within and not having to create multiple threads regarding the subject. I came from another forum and they had a similar thread that generated a lot of good discussion.

Bill O'Brien has been the rumor as of late which I wouldnt mind since he's an offensive minded guy. I think we are going to look for younger guys as well. I cant see us signing a big name coach that's out there. However, I really like Zimmer from Cincinnati even though he is a defensive minded coach.

Curious to what everyone's take is on Mike Priefer (ST coach). Granted Patterson has had a great year but I also believe it's mostly because of Patterson's talent rather than Priefer's coaching.

My biggest problems with Priefer have to do with decision making and coverage.

For example:
-His decision to kick to Hester week 2 non-stop. We ended up giving up 263 return yards and it was a big reason why we lost that game.
-His lack of preparation vs a "tanking" Cleveland team. The fake FG and fake punt killed us and was another reason why we lost.
-His decision to kick to Harvin right after we score and when there is 50 seconds on the clock before half. Killed any kind of momentum we had going into half.
-His decision to kick to Hester a few weeks ago when the game was on the line, tied, and seconds to go before the end of regulation. Nearly lost us the game.

I really think we need a new STs coach as well. Who? I have no clue. But I think something needs to be done there. He's been blessed with gifted returners the past two years (CP and Percy). If anything, I think they made him look good.

fiestavike wrote: If we bring in a new coach he will have an entirely new staff.

That said, I like Priefer. I like our whole staff. the only guy I am not sold on is Alan Williams. I don't feel like he has been flexible enough with what our defense is trying to do, but if you look at the grades I gave our defense in another thread, I do think he is being forced to work with an "understaffed" unit, you might say. We don't have a lot of premier talent or playmakers at any level of this defense. It might just be a personality difference, but I see a weak unit, and I want to try to employ them to attack, and try to force the other guys to make mistakes, he wants to play conservative and force the other guys to make plays. I can respect that approach and it has kept us close in a lot of games, although we've had a skewed time of possesion line the whole year and few turnovers. I'd have used Cook and Rhodes to press right from the start of the year, and bring more pressure up the middle since our DTs are not able to be much help in that department.

I've made it clear, my choice is to keep Frazier.

I hear ya about Williams. However, I'm not sure how you can be in favor of Musgrave. I think he is the worst of them all. He is one of the least-creative, most basic OC's in the NFL. Rotoworld and other analysts have said similar things as well. His play-calling has been atrocious since he has been here. Nothing bothered me more than when he called the quick slant to Rhett Ellison in the redzone (2nd Chicago game). Granted it was right in Ellison's hands and he dropped it, but bottom line is, you dont throw to a guy that has 9 career catches when the game is on the line. AP, Jennings, Patterson, Simpson, Wright, and Carlson were all MUCH better options than Rhett Ellison was. I would have been even more furious if we were actually in playoff contention and he made that call.

What really bothers me about Frazier and this whole staff more than anything is how there are players on our team that look so good now but have been riding the bench the whole year.

-Obviously, Prater was signed a few weeks ago but chances are, if we werent so injured, he would have never saw the field on defense.

-Then you have Audie Cole who was waived at one point and because of a suspension he finally starts and is all of the sudden a solid LB for us.

-You have Rhodes who was sitting behind Josh Robinson ( ) the whole year. Robinson goes down and Rhodes finally gets his shot and he looks great.

-Patterson was sitting behind Simpson for so long, Simpson gets a DWI and Patterson gets his chance. Now look how good he is doing.

-The Carlson signing looked terrible at first (even though I think was still payed too much). He then does a pretty good job filling in for Rudolph. I really believe Carlson is one of the better "back-up" TE's in the league. The purpose of signing Carlson was to run 2-TE sets similar to NE. Carlson was nothing but a blocker/ check-down option when Rudolph was playing and he wasnt utilized like he should have been.

....I cant even imagine what we have in Mauti and/or Hodges. It's very very hard to believe that neither of them are a better LB than Marvin "The Journeyman" Mitchell. A lot of the talent on this team has slipped through the cracks this year. If it wasnt for injuries and suspensions, I feel like some of these guys would be unheard of or still getting limited snaps. I am starting to believe Frazier is just too nice of a guy and doesnt have the balls to say...."You know what, this guy is out-playing you, he is going to start" (I dealt with a coach like that when I was playing college lacrosse. There were many young guys that should have been playing and werent because others were "juniors and seniors" and in turn, we were losing because of it). It's just making Frazier and his staff look worse and worse and it's very hard to watch.

How is it that this thread about potential coaches looks like every other thread about the existing ones?

Eli wrote:How is it that this thread about potential coaches looks like every other thread about the existing ones?

I actually wanted to change the thread title to existing and potential coaches but I dont think I can

Eli wrote:How is it that this thread about potential coaches looks like every other thread about the existing ones?

Probably because it's December and there just isn't that much to talk about yet. Similar to making a draft or free agency thread, it's just too early. Should heat up some after the superbowl.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I actually wanted to change the thread title to existing and potential coaches but I dont think I can

You can do that. Just go to your original post at the top of this thread, hit the "edit" button at the lower right, and when the new window opens, change the text in the title bar. That will change the title of the thread.

Mothman wrote: You can do that. Just go to your original post at the top of this thread, hit the "edit" button at the lower right, and when the new window opens, change the text in the title bar. That will change the title of the thread.

ahhhh gotcha!!! Thanks

Pondering Her Percy wrote:ahhhh gotcha!!! Thanks

You're welcome.

Also worth adding:

I appreciate the discussion you've brought to the board. You've given some intelligent takes and infused the board w/ some energy.

I agree w/ what you've said unthread:

What really bothers me about Frazier and this whole staff more than anything is how there are players on our team that look so good now but have been riding the bench the whole year.

Texas Vike wrote:Also worth adding:

I appreciate the discussion you've brought to the board. You've given some intelligent takes and infused the board w/ some energy.

I agree w/ what you've said unthread:

I confess, I find this one of the more frustrating subjects on the board these days, maybe because I seem to disagree with just about everyone about it. It seems like there's a "familiarity breeds contempt" dynamic at work with some of these player scenarios, where people are inclined to like newer players because they're fresh faces replacing players who have been frustrating to watch. In cases where first or second year players have shown improvement or they've looked well-prepared and delivered when called upon, I think the coaching staff deserves at least some credit, not just criticism. A young player might play well in week 11 or 12 but that doesn't necessarily mean they were capable of playing that well in week 1. The mindset seems to be be that if a player does well, the coaches missed something and should have used him sooner but very little consideration seems to be given to the possibility that the coaches taught the players something or actually helped them, even though that's what coaches do for a living.

That said, I also question how much better some of these young defenders, in particular, are actually playing when compared to the players they replaced. After all, the Vikings defense just allowed 475 yards of offense and 30 points to the Eagles. They collapsed and allowed 2 TDs in the final 2 minutes at Baltimore and the Ravens had 29 points and 375 yards of offense in terrible conditions. The Bears had 480 yards of offense and the week before that, Green Bay had 455 yards of total offense and the defense blew a 16 point lead in the 4th quarter! Are the replacements really performing much, if any better than their predecessors? Somebody is giving up all these yards and points.

Sorry about the mini rant. I needed to get that off my chest and I hope it won't offend anybody.

fiestavike wrote: I've made it clear, my choice is to keep Frazier.

Frazier is a good guy and the players seem to like and support him. But to all supporters, he will NOT be back next year. He's gone. Remember, the Wilfs have two years to get this team ready for the new stadium, and that's a big part of the equation that never seems to get noticed around here.

Mothman wrote:
I confess, I find this one of the more frustrating subjects on the board these days, maybe because I seem to disagree with just about everyone about it. It seems like there's a "familiarity breeds contempt" dynamic at work with some of these player scenarios, where people are inclined to like newer players because they're fresh faces replacing players who have been frustrating to watch. In cases where first or second year players have shown improvement or they've looked well-prepared and delivered when called upon, I think the coaching staff deserves at least some credit, not just criticism. A young player might play well in week 11 or 12 but that doesn't necessarily mean they were capable of playing that well in week 1. The mindset seems to be be that if a player does well, the coaches missed something and should have used him sooner but very little consideration seems to be given to the possibility that the coaches taught the players something or actually helped them, even though that's what coaches do for a living.

That said, I also question how much better some of these young defenders, in particular, are actually playing when compared to the players they replaced. After all, the Vikings defense just allowed 475 yards of offense and 30 points to the Eagles. They collapsed and allowed 2 TDs in the final 2 minutes at Baltimore and the Ravens had 29 points and 375 yards of offense in terrible conditions. The Bears had 480 yards of offense and the week before that, Green Bay had 455 yards of total offense and the defense blew a 16 point lead in the 4th quarter! Are the replacements really performing much, if any better than their predecessors? Somebody is giving up all these yards and points.

Sorry about the mini rant. I needed to get that off my chest and I hope it won't offend anybody.

It's always nice to get a good rant out there, I'm sure you've seen some of mine!

I'll try to break down the argument (that I support anyway) and make it more clear. I'm not saying it will convert you or even change your opinion at all, it's just how I see it.

I agree that Cole in week 1 or whoever you want to put in there, might not have been as good as the starter in front of him from day 1 this season, there's simply no way to know so it can't favor either argument. The thing that I find really questionable though, is that at some point, I think we can agree, a couple of these guys seem to have surpassed the starters. Like you, I don't know WHEN it happened, but I think it's safe to say it DID happen, hopefully you're with me so far. The problem as I see it, is that the coaches weren't able to analyze / evaluate the positional battles (henderson, cole, etc) on their own to determine Cole should get the nod at MLB. They essentially "lucked" into it when Henderson forced them to play Cole with his legal trouble. At other spots it took an injury for a change to happen and one other time even a player got himself EJECTED for the change to occur.

I do think they should get some kudos for developing those younger or more raw players, but for me the way it's all happened makes me think more negatively about the decision makers. If they had come out in week 12 and said "You know we've been seeing Cole do some good things and ultimately we've decided to give him the nod at MLB and move Henderson back to the weak side" I would have nothing but good things to say about it. As it is, I feel like every single move that's been made, hasn't been an actual thought based decision by Frazier, but some other force contributed to the change. (injury, ejection, legal troubles, etc)

Most of the time I feel the coaches are just content to go with what they got and let it play out, ride the wave if you will. But some times it's the wave of ineptitude and I guess what I'm looking for is if josh robinson is the most targeted / completed on CB in the league (at one point it got as bad as 93% completion rate) you gotta at least try sherels or someone else on the roster at nickel. If Ponder is not winning games and not able to run the offense like Cassel can than at some point you gotta put Cassel in.

I'm just scared we might lose games because the coaches are just so willing to sit on their hands and be content. Obviously it's not going to matter much this year, but what about next year? In some ways it's beneficial to let a guy develop on the job but when it doesn't work out, we're talking about losses and if you wait 2 games too long you might go from 10-6 and a playoff spot to 8-8 and miss out.

Let me be clear as well that that isn't the ONLY reason I wouldn't bring Frazier back.

As for how much better these guys are, probably only a little bit. But by now there are significant injuries adding to the problems and that certainly doesn't help either with some of the stats you listed for recent games.

It's also kind of like throwing money at the financial crisis, it helps a bit in the short term but deep down the system is still broken and the under lying problems still need to be fixed and that can't happen until the off season.