Thoughts on DeFilippo so far?

[SemperFeist]

 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

4 hours ago, milanb said:

Or it could simply be a case where the Vikings paid Kirk Cousins $84 million in guaranteed money precisely because of his ability to throw the ball down the field. I would be shocked if there wasn't some expectation at the organizational level that DeFilippo would move to a more pass-oriented, vertical offence.

It's also a situation where the Vikings were playing from behind in both the Bears game and the Patriots game. It's difficult to go to the run when your OL is not blocking your run plays very well and at the same time you need to score points.

I know we were down vs. the Patriots but we were down by THREE. Should have been tied. That's not nearly anywhere near the territory of saying "Uh oh....catch up time. No more running!" 

You can't use 3 points as an excuse to feel the need to stop running the ball when your star running back has 84 yards and a 9.3 YPC off 8-9 carries IN THE FIRST HALF.

Also, this team is a blue collar, win via defense. If someone said "We paid Kirk $84 million, we're now the 1998 Vikings." They should be fired.

Kirk was brought it to be what Case wasn't. The QB we saw in the Packers game or the Rams game. The QB who can bring you back to win if the defense doesn't show up. This team is built as a blue collar, defense first team that grinds the ball out but can air it out if need be to get back in the game except we don't have the line to be a vertical offense.

Now we're trying to be something we're not and it isn't working. Obviously.

 

[vikingsrule]

43 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Would it be that bad?  Head coaches take over play calling and vice versa all the time. If JDF isn't getting the message on how Zimmer wants the offense run, Zimmer could let him know that he's just going to try something else.

IDK it probably wouldn't work but that thing about JDF trying to set himself up to be a head coach got me thinking. I don't really bye that either though

This isn't a case of the HC taking over play calling duties, it was mentioned that Stefanski would, who as far as we know has less control over the offense than JDF. 

[SemperFeist]

It’s one thing for a head coach, who presumably has play calling experience and got a head coaching job due to that experience, to take over the play calling. It’s entirely different to hand over the play calling to someone with zero experience. 

Also, there’s a thing called chain of command. When the head coach takes over duties, it follows that chain. When you take the duties of one man and give them to another who, by all accounts, is lower on the chain, it breaks the chain. Without any official report, only rumor/speculation, that’s what happened in 2016, and why Norv Turner quit. 

[swede700]

If you have a subscription to the Athletic, I suggest you read Arif's article on DeFilippo and why people need to slow down in their overreaction to him.  It's a pretty good one.  

[PrplChilPill]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

If you have a subscription to the Athletic, I suggest you read Arif's article on DeFilippo and why people need to slow down in their overreaction to him.  It's a pretty good one.  

Has Arif ever called for a coach to be fired, or anything like that? I doubt it. 

also, it reads like "yes, there are issues, but we can't be sure it is the coach, so keep the coach.". 2nd to last in actual vs expected points per game, but not a coaching issue. They have a negative game script, but, hey, ,maybe that's not the coach.

Really, there is nothing positive about the coach in that article at all, just a lot of "well, maybe it isn't the coach" and "other coaches started slowly in their career". The 2nd of which is possibly a reasonable argument. 

[swede700]

1 minute ago, PrplChilPill said:

Has Arif ever called for a coach to be fired, or anything like that? I doubt it. 

also, it reads like "yes, there are issues, but we can't be sure it is the coach, so keep the coach.". 2nd to last in actual vs expected points per game, but not a coaching issue. They have a negative game script, but, hey, ,maybe that's not the coach.

Really, there is nothing positive about the coach in that article at all, just a lot of "well, maybe it isn't the coach" and "other coaches started slowly in their career". The 2nd of which is possibly a reasonable argument. 

All it means is that people need to slow down talking about firing him now and be patient.  All the talk in the preseason (and I believe I pointed it out at the time) is how he did this and that for Philadelphia...and there was no evidence of that as far as I was concerned because the 2 people ahead of him on the coaching chart were both former QBs and OCs themselves, so really how much input did he have?  I always thought it was going to be a learning process and that people should have held their horses on thinking it was going to be a smooth one.  Maybe it won't work out over the long term, but we can't know that yet.  We can't forget that Sean McVay was an OC for 3 years.  This is really only DeFilippo's first legitimate attempt at a real OC job (again, another slam at the Browns' organization) and Matt Nagy was an OC for 2 years.  

[VikeManDan]

He's got 4 games to change my mind. I'd love to be a fly on the wall with Zimmer and Flip talking about the offense.

Obviously if he's here next year I'll be rooting for him to succeed, I still am.

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

All it means is that people need to slow down talking about firing him now and be patient.  

Do we really have time to be patient? 

What if he doesn't move on in the off-season and he comes back and he's is bad as he was in 2018? Then we just lost 2 years of our "QB window" and have 1 season left to get something done before we're potentially looking at starting over at ground zero at QB. Firing a coordinator mid-season also usually doesn't work.

What if he just doesn't have it in him to be a good coordinator? If we were a rebuilding team with time to give him 2-3 seasons, I'd be for it. But we realistically have 3-4 seasons to get this done before our core defense (Rhodes, Smith, Griffen, Linval) gets to that age where they might take a step back and Kirk may be gone. 

Like VMD said, I think he has 4 games to show something. If he still can't figure it out, move on and try Stefanski who's been with the team for over a decade and knows the team inside & out.

When Kirk's contract ends, that may also be the end of Spielman and Zimmer if we don't sniff a Super Bowl.

[swede700]

1 hour ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Do we really have time to be patient? 

 

Yes.

Instead of expecting him to fail (which is what you're doing by going the "What if he fails" route), how about letting the process play out.  Sure, it might not pan out, but calling for his head now does nothing except create a self-fulfilling prophecy for you that you won't be pleased unless he's a top-5 OC. 

I always go back to the Tarvaris situation in times like these, where people were calling for his head 10-12 games into his tenure as a starting QB.  I had doubts too (especially after that Colts game), but was looking for some progress by the end of his 2nd season.  When that progress didn't come, that's when I jumped off the wagon.  DeFilippo should be given that same consideration.  If it's mid-year next year (if he hasn't gotten a HC job) and he still hasn't shown signs of any consistent progress as an OC, that's when you consider pulling the plug...not 12 games into his 1st season...or even his first full season. 

The team isn't going from 13-3 to 3-13, which probably would be a fireable offense.  They are likely to still have a winning record despite the upheaval with the OC, QB, RB and offensive line...and less consistent play from the defense as well (especially to start the season) which may be due to the rules changes, as well as injuries (and Everson's situation).  

They have the time to be patient...this isn't 2010 with a 40-year old QB on his last legs and half of the starting roster age 30+.  Cousins' contract isn't running out tomorrow...and most of their key players are still in their prime and will be so for the next 2-3 years.  In fact, it wouldn't be until 2021 where that same situation would occur.  So, there's time...and no need to panic.

 

[skywindO2]

This is all part of the grooming process for Stefanski. He's learning what not to do. 

[Nbanflguy]

Should be fired today if we want any chance at winning the superbowl this year

[swede700]

8 minutes ago, Nbanflguy said:

Should be fired today if we want any chance at winning the superbowl this year

Someone needs the Therapeutic Davenport of Love.  

[Cearbhall]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

I always go back to the Tarvaris situation in times like these, where people were calling for his head 10-12 games into his tenure as a starting QB.  I had doubts too (especially after that Colts game), but was looking for some progress by the end of his 2nd season.  When that progress didn't come, that's when I jumped off the wagon.  DeFilippo should be given that same consideration.  If it's mid-year next year (if he hasn't gotten a HC job) and he still hasn't shown signs of any consistent progress as an OC, that's when you consider pulling the plug...not 12 games into his 1st season...or even his first full season.

That is a bizarre thing to point back to if you are trying to suggest staying the course is the right move. History shows you were dead wrong in that example. The team would have been better off moving on from Jackson after his rookie year.

An example of a player that didn't look good his rookie year but turned out to be a HOF player after a team chose to stay the course would suite your argument a lot better. Someone like Peyton Manning, not T-Jack. There was never any serious push for the Colts to dump Peyton after his rookie year so that isn't a great example either. Think of a player that a fan base wanted to see the team dump after a year and worked out great for the a team that stayed the course. They exist. Even more fitting for your argument would be a coach.

If it is difficult to find really good examples perhaps this exercise would lead one to believe that the more likely mistake is a team staying the course too long, as in the T-Jack example you brought out. Did you argue in favor of staying the course with Childress as head coach after his first year? Would you use that as an example of why the team should stay the course with DeFilippo? I would hope not, but then you called out the T-Jack example.

For the record, the honeymoon ended really early for me with coach Childress. Nothing that happened after that, even the near Super Bowl spot, swayed my opinion of him. I would posit that a fan jumping off the bandwagon on a coach after a year might just be right about what would ultimately be the best move.  I certainly wouldn't be so quick to conclude they are wrong. Likewise, I am not concluding that you are wrong either. Staying the course may be the correct move. It is an open question. Time will tell.

Les Steckel

[Cearbhall]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

They are likely to still have a winning record despite the upheaval with the OC, QB, RB and offensive line

You are using going from Case Keenum to Kirk Cousins as an argument in favor of DeFilippo?

Going from not having Cook for most of the year to having him for most of the year?

Not saying you are wrong. It is possible that '18 Cousins is a step down from '17 Keenum. There are certainly stats that would back that up. It is simply fascinating to me to see a fan advancing those arguments. I can't recall where you were with wanting Cousins in the offseason or your opinion of Cook. Most fans considered those as things that raised their expectation of the OC.