The Zim-Zam Flim-Flam: All Things Zimmer

[VikeManDan]

24 minutes ago, perrynoid said:

Here is Deon's call to Zimmer after the game:

https://www.vikings.com/video/zimmer-joins-deion-to-talk-defensive-effort-against-saints-rumors-about-his-job-?sf227513517=1

Absolutely love the relationship these two have.

*I also love how Zimmer seemed ticked off when being asked about winning. Said something along the lines of "I've won 60% of my games as a HC". Obviously paraphrasing but the video above is worth the 4-5 minutes IMO.

Edited January 6, 2020 by VikeManDan
*

[vikingsrule]

16 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I've just always thought that people who criticize Zimmer's coaching seem to have short memories and/or a very narrow viewpoint of what it means to be a good coach...it's like they think coaching skill is either you win a Super Bowl or you're a terrible coach and deserve to be fired.  While he's not on the same level over the long-term, it should be noted that Andy Reid has yet to win a Super Bowl and that 6 of the top-10 coaches in wins (who actually coached during the Super Bowl era, thus, Curly Lambeau and George Halas don't count) haven't/never won a Super Bowl.  Super Bowl wins aren't the end-all, be-all.  But, if this franchise is going to win a Super Bowl, I think this coach gives them the best chance, with his concentration on defense-first and running the ball. 

I wonder how much of it has to do with Stefanski. We don’t know if he’s ever going to be a good head coach but there’s a ton of potential there and he’s very young. You hate losing a coach like that when you have a coach who is in the later years of his career and hasn’t delivered in the playoffs. He delivered in a big way and his team came to resdy to play, despite a fumble to start the game.

[Snake Plissken]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

I've just always thought that people who criticize Zimmer's coaching seem to have short memories and/or a very narrow viewpoint of what it means to be a good coach...it's like they think coaching skill is either you win a Super Bowl or you're a terrible coach and deserve to be fired.  While he's not on the same level over the long-term, it should be noted that Andy Reid has yet to win a Super Bowl and that 6 of the top-10 coaches in wins (who actually coached during the Super Bowl era, thus, Curly Lambeau and George Halas don't count) haven't/never won a Super Bowl.  Super Bowl wins aren't the end-all, be-all.  But, if this franchise is going to win a Super Bowl, I think this coach gives them the best chance, with his concentration on defense-first and running the ball. 

So anyone who criticizes Zimmer has a very narrow viewpoint, but anyone who doesn't criticize him has a very open viewpoint....?

[swede700]

51 minutes ago, Snake Plissken said:

So anyone who criticizes Zimmer has a very narrow viewpoint, but anyone who doesn't criticize him has a very open viewpoint....?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, so I probably should have been more clear.  I'm really writing about very specific posters, who have seemed to have a narrow perception of what should be deemed as successful and have been willing to move on from Zimmer simply because he hasn't won a Super Bowl...and continually pointing out that he only had 1 playoff win as their sole criterion for his dismissal, despite his regular season success (which should be pointed out that his non-playoff seasons were under extremely unusual and adverse situations such as losing a HOF RB to a personal situation and losing your anticipated starting QB a few days before the season starts).  I sort of compare it to the one-issue voter, who seem to (illogically, at least IMO) pick candidates solely on the basis of one position, despite another candidate having the same position as the voter in 90% of all the other issues. 

I feel that I've been able to understand that he has certain deficiencies and not completely dismiss them (most notably his handling of the team in certain big spots, which he has improved on, as he's gone along), but these posters have dismissed every point to the contrary to suit their own objective, while indicating that they are hoping for the best, but (at least IMO), haven't shown any evidence of that real hope.  They've clearly already come to that conclusion, which is fine, but they do need to know that change for change's sake, more often than not, doesn't lead to the success that you are clamoring for.

Edited January 6, 2020 by swede700

[PrplChilPill]

31 minutes ago, swede700 said:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, so I probably should have been more clear.  I'm really writing about very specific posters, who have seemed to have a narrow perception of what should be deemed as successful and have been willing to move on from Zimmer simply because he hasn't won a Super Bowl...and continually pointing out that he only had 1 playoff win as their sole criterion for his dismissal, despite his regular season success (which should be pointed out that his non-playoff seasons were under extremely unusual and adverse situations such as losing a HOF RB to a personal situation and losing your anticipated starting QB a few days before the season starts).  I sort of compare it to the one-issue voter, who seem to (illogically, at least IMO) pick candidates solely on the basis of one position, despite another candidate having the same position as the voter in 90% of all the other issues. 

I feel that I've been able to understand that he has certain deficiencies and not completely dismiss them (most notably his handling of the team in certain big spots, which he has improved on, as he's gone along), but these posters have dismissed every point to the contrary to suit their own objective, while indicating that they are hoping for the best, but (at least IMO), haven't shown any evidence of that real hope.  They've clearly already come to that conclusion, which is fine, but they do need to know that change for change's sake, more often than not, doesn't lead to the success that you are clamoring for.

It's exactly what you said.

As for yesterday, he had a very good defensive game plan. Once again, they went into a shell in the 4th, and almost lost the game because of that. That's been my most constant criticism, is the playing not to lose over crushing the opponent and trying to win. I watch other teams pass and try to get first downs, while the Vikings do their best to run time off the clock, and end up punting over and over. I really wish he'd go for it on offense more, both on fourth and short, and late in games when a first down wins the game, as opposed to punting when they inevitably don't pick up the first down.

[swede700]

24 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said:

It's exactly what you said.

As for yesterday, he had a very good defensive game plan. Once again, they went into a shell in the 4th, and almost lost the game because of that. That's been my most constant criticism, is the playing not to lose over crushing the opponent and trying to win. I watch other teams pass and try to get first downs, while the Vikings do their best to run time off the clock, and end up punting over and over. I really wish he'd go for it on offense more, both on fourth and short, and late in games when a first down wins the game, as opposed to punting when they inevitably don't pick up the first down.

But, is that worthy of firing him?  That's the point I'm making.  You can certainly be critical of it, but firing him over just that is where I have the issue.  

Edited January 6, 2020 by swede700

[Guest]

I am NOT in favor of firing Zimmer at this point.  However, in my own mind, a THE definition of being successful in sports is winning championships.  Therefore, Zimmer isn't, so far, successful; neither Greene or Grant were successful either.  Belicheck had a very unsuccessful season this year.  Yes, I know that this means that there is only one football team a season that has a successful year...but, that's what I think.  I don't expect many or any others to agree with me.

[Snake Plissken]

38 minutes ago, swede700 said:

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, so I probably should have been more clear.  I'm really writing about very specific posters, who have seemed to have a narrow perception of what should be deemed as successful and have been willing to move on from Zimmer simply because he hasn't won a Super Bowl...and continually pointing out that he only had 1 playoff win as their sole criterion for his dismissal, despite his regular season success (which should be pointed out that his non-playoff seasons were under extremely unusual and adverse situations such as losing a HOF RB to a personal situation and losing your anticipated starting QB a few days before the season starts).  I sort of compare it to the one-issue voter, who seem to (illogically, at least IMO) pick candidates solely on the basis of one position, despite another candidate having the same position as the voter in 90% of all the other issues. 

I feel that I've been able to understand that he has certain deficiencies and not completely dismiss them (most notably his handling of the team in certain big spots, which he has improved on, as he's gone along), but these posters have dismissed every point to the contrary to suit their own objective, while indicating that they are hoping for the best, but (at least IMO), haven't shown any evidence of that real hope.  They've clearly already come to that conclusion, which is fine, but they do need to know that change for change's sake, more often than not, doesn't lead to the success that you are clamoring for.

Thank you for clarifying.  Everyone has their own views, opinions, and expectations for coaches, players, and the team.  I get that some are more critical, have very high expectations and a shorter leash, while others are more supportive, patient, with more slack.  I tend to be a little more critical and want to see signs of growth, development, and hope.  The more I see the team moving in a positive direction on many different levels, the more supportive I am of the coach.  Likewise, the opposite brings criticism.

For me, this season and next put Zimmer in the make or break zone.  Not in terms of strictly winning the Super Bowl, but demonstrating that he is truly capable of being able to lead a team there.  While the team has been successful under Zimmer, the questions become...is this success enough?  Is he a SB caliber coach?  Does the team continue with the status quo or take a risk with someone else?    So, the comment that seemed to generalize everyone who was critical toward Zimmer and the context of the criticism seemed a mischaracterization of those who are trying to evaluate the negatives and positives.

 

While I do have a number of questions about the long-term status of Zimmer, I will say that the overall preparedness, intensity, performance, and particularly defensive game plan was a positive.  Win or lose in SF, the performance of the team will say a lot about Zimmer's progression and ranking as a Head Coach.

[swede700]

FWIW, there will be a time that Zimmer will have worn out his welcome with me as well...just like it did with Denny, and just like Andy Reid did in Philly.  But, I'm nowhere near close to that yet.  It's only been 6 years, and he has virtually a .600 winning percentage.  Come back to me in several years and I'll re-evaluate the situation, but I think calling for his dismissal was almost cutting off the nose to spite the face.  I could almost understand it if they had a meltdown here in New Orleans, but I didn't envision that ever happening...it would have had to been an epic failure, ala Glen Mason's final game with the Gophers.  

[PrplChilPill]

5 minutes ago, swede700 said:

FWIW, there will be a time that Zimmer will have worn out his welcome with me as well...just like it did with Denny, and just like Andy Reid did in Philly.  But, I'm nowhere near close to that yet.  It's only been 6 years, and he has virtually a .600 winning percentage.  Come back to me in several years and I'll re-evaluate the situation, but I think calling for his dismissal was almost cutting off the nose to spite the face.  I could almost understand it if they had a meltdown here in New Orleans, but I didn't envision that ever happening...it would have had to been an epic failure, ala Glen Mason's final game with the Gophers.  

Of course, most of us said the same thing. If they lose again, and have 1 playoff win in 6 years, he should be gone. I've been critical of process and outcomes. The outcomes changed yesterday.....but I still don't like the process on offense. 

[TENINCH]

Outside of Stefanski I wonder what coaching changes will be made this off-season on either side of the ball.

Edited January 6, 2020 by TENINCH

[VikeManDan]

11 minutes ago, TENINCH said:

Outside of Stefanski I wonder what coaching changes will be made this off-season on either side of the ball.

He ain't gone yet. 

[SemperFeist]

10 minutes ago, TENINCH said:

Outside of Stefanski I wonder what coaching changes will be made this off-season on either side of the ball.

If the Vikings lose Stefanski, and that’s certainly no guarantee. I could very easily see Zimmer bringing back Pat Shurmur. The two had a very good relationship together, and Zimmer is probably tired of losing his OCs. Shurmur isn’t likely going to get another HC job in his career, so bringing him back as OC could finally give the Vikings some stability/continuity on offense. 

[swede700]

How funny is it now that George Edwards isn't getting any interviews.  It would be nice to see him get some more, considering how critical he has been to Zimmer's defense as well.  Yes, Zimmer puts in a lot of effort, but I'm certain Edwards has his stamp on it as well.  

[VikeManDan]

Just now, swede700 said:

How funny is it now that George Edwards isn't getting any interviews.  It would be nice to see him get some more, considering how critical he has been to Zimmer's defense as well.  Yes, Zimmer puts in a lot of effort, but I'm certain Edwards has his stamp on it as well.  

Agreed. I wonder how much giving up defensive play-calling duties would impact Zimmer's ability to "manage" the game. I would hope it would have a positive impact.