Week 17: VIKINGS (7-8) at Packers (12-3)

[Uncle Buck]

Reporter just asked Zim:  "Do you think you want to get a look at Mond next week?

Zim:  "Not particularly."

Reporter:  "Why not?"

Zim:  "I see him every week." 

 

Holy schnikees!

[swede700]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

Reporter just asked Zim:  "Do you think you want to get a look at Mond next week?

Zim:  "Not particularly."

Reporter:  "Why not?"

Zim:  "I see him every week." 

 

Holy schnikees!

I knew that would be his feeling once he threw that pass.  

[Uncle Buck]

5 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

If a team is  defeated by the cold, they're mentally weak. 

True.  Makes a person long for the glory days of Bud Grant.  Those were some great teams! 

[Robb_K]

50 minutes ago, Purplexing said:

Vikings HCs since 2000 (Tice, ex-Coachilly, Frazier, Zimmer) have a W-L % of 51%

Assuming a loss tonight, Zimmers' W-L % is 56.3%.

Assuming a loss vs Chicago next week, it will drop to 56%, but a win raises it to 56.6%.

Vikings HCs since 2000 excluding Zimmer have a W-L record of 48% (92/192).

What is the underlying problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_Vikings_head_coaches

 

 

Up until The Wilfs, it was lack of enough money to compete for hiring the best team-building executives, the fact that on average, a LOT more Americans don't want to reside in a place anywhere near as cold as Minnesota is during Winter, and more than not would rather not live in The Midwest (that goes for being able to hire the best executives, and to be able to compete in re-signing their star, homegrown players, and lack of a top-notch player development system.  The Wilf's regime has had enough money with which to work, but not good enough football connections to have the knowledge of who the best potential football executives might be, and not enough good football connections to have inside track connections to get them to Choose The Vikings as their place to land. 

The Vikings have suffered from not having the highest level of college scouting, knowledge of which QBs are better prospects, and most of all......... they haven't developed a top-notch player development system full of good positional instructional coaches, in all three main areas (offence, defence, and special teams).  The Vikings, under The Wilfs, have only had excellent draftee and young player development on one side of the ball (defensive Line, Defensive backfield, and Linebackers), and THAT only existed for a few years each, during Zimmer's time as coach, with only a short overlap of best period among those 3 defensive position areas.

The best teams for long terms of playoff runs (Dynasties or Mini-Dynasties) Pittsburgh, Miami, San Francisco, Dallas) all were good at finding good young players, developing them to their best fit in a good system, and had player-friendly coaching staffs and team policies, so players would want to come there as free agents, and stay there in 2nd and 3rd contracts.  And their periods of excellent development of most young players were in all positional areas, and usually for most of their dynastic periods (unlike The Vikings' very short periods of development excellence in just one or two positional areas at a time.

Of the dynasties, MOST of those franchises had advantages over a Minneapolis-St. Paul franchise, in having a much larger metropolitan area population base (higher income potential for team operating assets, and player potential endorsement income, AND a more attractive climate.  So Pittsburgh is really the only somewhat comperable situation, who was able to develop a dynasty.  And that was accomplished (against the odds - disadvantages) by ownership having an educated and discerning eye to be able to be able to recognise a very high level of the right attitude, energy, work ethic, in potential candidates for their management and coaching jobs, and doing what it takes to hire them (have them choose their team) - in the areas of general management, head coaching, development coaching, and having a feel for working in a system (including working well with others and getting the most out of underlings).

Edited January 3, 2022 by Robb_K

[swede700]

3 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

And this is where I see this team as mentally weak. 

While this team is particularly mentally weak, I think the entire franchise has been pretty mentally weak for decades now, outside of a handful of seasons.  I can't recall the last time the Vikings really physically dominated anyone, which is exactly what the Packers did tonight.  

[Uncle Buck]

1 minute ago, swede700 said:

I knew that would be his feeling once he threw that pass.  

I'm not saying Mond is the answer at this point, but it sure sounds like it's time for Zimmer to get his walking papers.  He's never going to change.

[gopherwrestler]

7 minutes ago, swede700 said:

That's one of the main issues I saw...they were getting mostly dominated on both sides of the line...and when the Packers' offensive line was basically playing only 1 starter, the entire team should be embarrassed.

 

5 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

And this is where I see this team as mentally weak. 

We were playing one defensive line starter…. And a DT at DE

[swede700]

1 minute ago, gopherwrestler said:

 

We were playing one defensive line starter…. And a DT at DE

One of those "non-starters" had started 12 out of 15 games.  He's not really a non-starter at this point.  And the DT playing DE is in his 9th year.  That's not a very good excuse as far as I'm concerned.

[SemperFeist]

5 minutes ago, gopherwrestler said:

 

We were playing one defensive line starter…. And a DT at DE

And they were playing one offensive line starter. 

Physicality is a mentality. 

[SemperFeist]

1 minute ago, swede700 said:

And the DT playing DE is in his 9th year.  That's not a very good excuse as far as I'm concerned.

And certainly not one for getting pushed around. 

[gopherwrestler]

14 minutes ago, swede700 said:

One of those "non-starters" had started 12 out of 15 games.  He's not really a non-starter at this point.  And the DT playing DE is in his 9th year.  That's not a very good excuse as far as I'm concerned.

This is like saying we should switch a 9 year vet at TE switch to WR and complain about him not being able to separate. 
 

The fact is, we just weren’t a very good team after injuries and illnesses. And we all said this going into the season. 
 

It dang near happens to any team that is full of aging veterans who are all “above average” or better but are payed well where depth can’t be afforded. 
 

We had to be healthy this year to reach a peak. And we just never had that on either side of the ball. 
 

 

[swede700]

1 minute ago, gopherwrestler said:

This is like saying we should switch a 9 year vet at TE switch to WR and complain about him not being able to separate.

That's not even close to the same comparison.  And I could guarantee you that you could line up Kelce as a WR and he'd find a way to get separation.  

There's no way that Sheldon Richardson should be able to be physically dominated by a backup OT.

[gopherwrestler]

3 minutes ago, swede700 said:

That's not even close to the same comparison.  And I could guarantee you that you could line up Kelce as a WR and he'd find a way to get separation.  

There's no way that Sheldon Richardson should be able to be physically dominated by a backup OT.

You are comparing one of the best TE’s to a DT that hasn’t had a good year since he played for the Jets on his rookie contract. 
 

There is a way, and part of that is Richardson just isn’t that good. He’s a backup DT and should never be playing DE in this scheme. But it’s the best we got. 
 

[Purplexing]

8 hours ago, twslhs20 said:

Roster construction, and allocation of resources.

Correct.  The dilution of talent by Ten-Pick Rick should be evident by recent results, when coaches hired under Frazier and Zimmer are considered.  The classic example from the past is the lack of DL talent under Green when the team drafted DL with great potential but never developed under their meager, at best, DL coaches. 

The raw talent on the game-day roster was diluted by trading picks to accumulate more late round picks, assuming the coaching staff could develop their lesser talent and potential into great players.  It didn't work, consistently.  Of course, we can point to exceptions; e.g. undrafted Thielen.  But the roster isn't made up of exceptions.

[Purplexing]

7 hours ago, Robb_K said:

Up until The Wilfs, it was lack of enough money to compete for hiring the best team-building executives, the fact that on average, a LOT more Americans don't want to reside in a place anywhere near as cold as Minnesota is during Winter, and more than not would rather not live in The Midwest (that goes for being able to hire the best executives, and to be able to compete in re-signing their star, homegrown players, and lack of a top-notch player development system.  The Wilf's regime has had enough money with which to work, but not good enough football connections to have the knowledge of who the best potential football executives might be, and not enough good football connections to have inside track connections to get them to Choose The Vikings as their place to land. 

The Vikings have suffered from not having the highest level of college scouting, knowledge of which QBs are better prospects, and most of all......... they haven't developed a top-notch player development system full of good positional instructional coaches, in all three main areas (offence, defence, and special teams).  The Vikings, under The Wilfs, have only had excellent draftee and young player development on one side of the ball (defensive Line, Defensive backfield, and Linebackers), and THAT only existed for a few years each, during Zimmer's time as coach, with only a short overlap of best period among those 3 defensive position areas.

The best teams for long terms of playoff runs (Dynasties or Mini-Dynasties) Pittsburgh, Miami, San Francisco, Dallas) all were good at finding good young players, developing them to their best fit in a good system, and had player-friendly coaching staffs and team policies, so players would want to come there as free agents, and stay there in 2nd and 3rd contracts.  And their periods of excellent development of most young players were in all positional areas, and usually for most of their dynastic periods (unlike The Vikings' very short periods of development excellence in just one or two positional areas at a time.

Of the dynasties, MOST of those franchises had advantages over a Minneapolis-St. Paul franchise, in having a much larger metropolitan area population base (higher income potential for team operating assets, and player potential endorsement income, AND a more attractive climate.  So Pittsburgh is really the only somewhat comperable situation, who was able to develop a dynasty.  And that was accomplished (against the odds - disadvantages) by ownership having an educated and discerning eye to be able to be able to recognise a very high level of the right attitude, energy, work ethic, in potential candidates for their management and coaching jobs, and doing what it takes to hire them (have them choose their team) - in the areas of general management, head coaching, development coaching, and having a feel for working in a system (including working well with others and getting the most out of underlings).

Thanks for the thorough discussion!  I agree with most of your diagnosis.

I'll add to this reply later, when time permits.  But one item requires an immediate, short rebuttal; New England, Pittsburgh, and Green Bay have had success playing in colder northern US cities, and have been able to attract and retain top talent - in players, coaches and execs.  In short, success starts at the top, with owners who understand their business, and hire the right people to carry it out.  Hence, Max Winter, etc. and Bud Grant, Jerry Burns, ... vs. Red McCombs and Green and Tice, then The "Wiffs" (sic) and Spielman, Childress, Frazier, and Zimmer.