Posts: 3,820
Threads: 3,418
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
239
“We had a chip on our shoulder last year,” Zimmer said. “I don’t know that that chip was there. And we’re going to get it back.
“You can look at a lot of statistics, but quite honestly, this football team through the years I’ve been here had that nasty, ‘We’re going to win no matter what the situation is’ mentality, and I don’t know that we had it.
“It’s a different vibe with this football team, and I don’t know exactly why ... for some reason, we didn’t finish the games like we did before. We’re going to get that mentality back.
“We’re going to get it back.”
Zimmer is entering the final year of his contract, and said that was fine.
“I’ve got no problem with that ... free agent after that, right?” he joked.
Zimmer said he has until Tuesday to decide whether he’d like to keep interim offensive coordinator Kevin Stefanski on for a permanent ride. Stefanski replaced John DeFilippo for the season’s final three games.
“[There are] all kinds of options there,” Zimmer said. “Kevin is a very good football coach, very smart guy. I thought he did a good job for the three weeks in a tough situation.
“It’s fair to the organization, myself, and the fans to look at everybody.
The preseason death of offensive line coach Tony Sparano was raised several times as a dark cloud over the season.
“[It] threw things into a downward spiral,” Zimmer said. “He was a Type A personality, very innovative in the run game, strong voice in the room, strong voice we me, so we lost a little of our identity. And we’re going to try to get that back.”
Offensively, the Vikings had issues, and that was part of the reason DeFilippo was fired after a loss in Seattle on Dec. 10.
“We didn’t score points, we didn’t score enough in the red zone,” Zimmer said. “Obviously I want to run the football and play action pass because I think that’s the most effective way to challenge a defense. But there’s a lot of things we need to improve on.”
As for $84 million quarterback Kirk Cousins, Zimmer said they would meet to talk about improvement.
“It’s about the football team,” Zimmer said. “One guy doesn’t win games, one guy doesn’t lose football games, I don’t take it that way. I have a lot of confidence in Kirk, I’ve talked to him, I’ve talked to other people about what I can do to help him moving forward.
“He was a great teammate, he studied real hard ... I’m sure there are some areas where he can get better, and I’m sure he’d be the first one to tell you that.”
The Vikings offensive line took the brunt of criticism following the season. Zimmer said he hoped to match his team’s defensive attitude with a similar offensive outlook.
“The five years I’ve been here, defensively we’ve gone up and been here,” Zimmer said. “But offensively we’ve been down here, so I have to do a better job of creating the mind-set that we have on defense on offense.”
http://www.startribune.com/vikings-coach...503856632/
Watch Presser Here:
https://www.vikings.com/video/mike-zimme...parano-nfl
Good. Hire a good line coach and lets get that nasty back on O.
Last year with the exit of Kalil and the All Star Talk guard, and the infusion of Reiff in the room, I thought we changed our identity on O. But with Sparano passing and the soft middle, we really struggled to run for even a yard up the middle.
I've been a fan of Zimmer since he got here. I even supported his foundation by buying a bunch of T-shirts. But it's time to call it like it is: this is pure BS. For a guy who was famous for saying, "Don't tell me about the labor, just show me the baby", he sure talks alot about the labor- without accepting any of the responsibility (at least not in these quotes).
Here we go:
- "Chip on our shoulder... nasty". Bull. First of all, you didn't have it last year, either, as the Eagles mopped the floor with your "nasty" guys. Second of all, if you really want your team to play with swagger, then stop telling them to "not lose" games. Give them the freedom to go win it (specifically talking about the offense here). If your defense is so badass, then stop trying to protect them with a run first (and always), ball-control mentality. Let 'em sling it... and then turn your "wild dogs" loose.
- "It’s fair to the organization, myself, and the fans to look at everybody" Oh, so now you're worrying about being "fair"? What about last year, when you blocked Stefanski's opportunity for advancement, because you gave loyalty... and then expected it back? You put Stefanski in this position; if you're so loyal, then give him the job. But, if it's all about winning, then you should've said that last year: that you care about winning, not people. Just be honest, coach.
- "We didn't score enough points... play-action is best way to challenge a defense". While the first part may be true... I'm not so sure about the second. We didn't score enough points, because YOU demanded that your OC play ball-control offense- DESPITE the fact that you don't have the OL to do it. You have the OL for a short, quick passing game... which should've been used to set up the run (not the other way around). Yes, generally it all starts with the run- but not when YOU CAN'T RUN IT effectively (against above-average teams). As for play-action: you might feel that way, Coach, but only because your D-Line and LBs couldn't stop the run to save their lives, forcing you to commit more man-power to it, making the play-action pass more deadly (vs. us). Other teams don't have that problem against us... which is why they were able to double team both our receivers- and STILL stop the run. Stop out-smarting yourself on defense (i.e. play it straight up more often, rather than trying to show off your genius)... and take the leash off of the OC and QB. This defense cannot win games by itself. A good offense- on the other hand- can. So let the offense try to win games... and then let the defense do their part. Offense is king, Coach... whether we like it or not.
- "match the offense with the defense's attitude/outlook"??? You demand that the GM get you all the best, shiniest players for the defense... and then wonder why the offense struggles? It's not a matter of attitude... and, although scheme definitely matters, its not that either. It's the players. You have a good QB who you put a leash on, so that he wouldn't turn the ball over too much... and a good set of skill players. You still need a third receiver (who might already be on the roster, but its NOT Treadwell). But what you REALLY need... is to invest some high draft picks on the OL. The 2 "best" players on the OL were players that were drafted in the 3rd round our higher. The next best player (Reiff) was a (somewhat) expensive FA pick-up. The rest were late draft picks or FA scrubs. Frankly, you get out of the offense what you put into it. Start investing some draft picks there and see what happens.
One other thing: you better figure out why your staff has such a blind-spot for certain players. Treadwell shouldn't have been on the field as much as he was... and Richardson sucks vs. the run (yet he was out there for the majority of snaps). Meanwhile, guys like O'Neill and A. Harris were on the bench forever until injuries forced you to play them. Both were HUGE upgrades over the previous (coach's pets) players. And don't get me started on Compton. If he was better than everyone else on the roster, then you might as well just fire Spielman. But I don't think he was better than Isadora. I just think that you guys were blind to it. I say that, because I no longer trust your coaches to put the best players on the field. Sometimes you just so close to the forest that you can't see the trees. I don't know how else to explain it: but the best players were not playing this year. And it cost "us".
For me, I sure as hell hope they look outside for the OC. Stef deserves a shot, but he didn't light the world on fire. He needs a plan on how to revitalize the offense. Our offense got plenty of shiny toys the last 2 year. New tackles, Diggs, Thielen, Cook. Then the 84 million dollar QB.
Meh. Pumpf took this apart very well already. I just hear a lot of self-defense and excuse-making. As expected, Tony Sparano is being used as an overarching excuse for an entire season. Yes, very sad, but every decent organization needs to plan for continuity and this team's problems went far beyond what Sparano likely influenced.
His key comment IMO:
Quote:“The five years I’ve been here, defensively we’ve gone up and been here,” Zimmer said. “But offensively we’ve been down here, so I have to do a better job of creating the mind-set that we have on defense on offense.”
In other words, Zimmer still thinks he has a great defense (not true) and is taking the easy option of pointing all his fingers at the offense - especially the OL, which does deserve an overhaul, but how convenient that it's the area with few, if any, coaches' favorites. I think he still sees himself as part of the defensive unit and the offense is alien.
Quote:"match the offense with the defense's attitude/outlook"
Actually, I think he has, though maybe in the reverse order. Both units play scared, afraid of mistakes: offensively reluctant to throw beyond the LOS because they are afraid of interceptions, and defensively they rarely cause turnovers because of the risk of missing tackles or coverage assignments.
Quote: @"pumpf" said:
I've been a fan of Zimmer since he got here. I even supported his foundation by buying a bunch of T-shirts. But it's time to call it like it is: this is pure BS. For a guy who was famous for saying, "Don't tell me about the labor, just show me the baby", he sure talks alot about the labor- without accepting any of the responsibility (at least not in these quotes).
Here we go:
- "Chip on our shoulder... nasty". Bull. First of all, you didn't have it last year, either, as the Eagles mopped the floor with your "nasty" guys. Second of all, if you really want your team to play with swagger, then stop telling them to "not lose" games. Give them the freedom to go win it (specifically talking about the offense here). If your defense is so badass, then stop trying to protect them with a run first (and always), ball-control mentality. Let 'em sling it... and then turn your "wild dogs" loose.
- "It’s fair to the organization, myself, and the fans to look at everybody" Oh, so now you're worrying about being "fair"? What about last year, when you blocked Stefanski's opportunity for advancement, because you gave loyalty... and then expected it back? You put Stefanski in this position; if you're so loyal, then give him the job. But, if it's all about winning, then you should've said that last year: that you care about winning, not people. Just be honest, coach.
- "We didn't score enough points... play-action is best way to challenge a defense". While the first part may be true... I'm not so sure about the second. We didn't score enough points, because YOU demanded that your OC play ball-control offense- DESPITE the fact that you don't have the OL to do it. You have the OL for a short, quick passing game... which should've been used to set up the run (not the other way around). Yes, generally it all starts with the run- but not when YOU CAN'T RUN IT effectively (against above-average teams). As for play-action: you might feel that way, Coach, but only because your D-Line and LBs couldn't stop the run to save their lives, forcing you to commit more man-power to it, making the play-action pass more deadly (vs. us). Other teams don't have that problem against us... which is why they were able to double team both our receivers- and STILL stop the run. Stop out-smarting yourself on defense (i.e. play it straight up more often, rather than trying to show off your genius)... and take the leash off of the OC and QB. This defense cannot win games by itself. A good offense- on the other hand- can. So let the offense try to win games... and then let the defense do their part. Offense is king, Coach... whether we like it or not.
- "match the offense with the defense's attitude/outlook"??? You demand that the GM get you all the best, shiniest players for the defense... and then wonder why the offense struggles? It's not a matter of attitude... and, although scheme definitely matters, its not that either. It's the players. You have a good QB who you put a leash on, so that he wouldn't turn the ball over too much... and a good set of skill players. You still need a third receiver (who might already be on the roster, but its NOT Treadwell). But what you REALLY need... is to invest some high draft picks on the OL. The 2 "best" players on the OL were players that were drafted in the 3rd round our higher. The next best player (Reiff) was a (somewhat) expensive FA pick-up. The rest were late draft picks or FA scrubs. Frankly, you get out of the offense what you put into it. Start investing some draft picks there and see what happens.
One other thing: you better figure out why your staff has such a blind-spot for certain players. Treadwell shouldn't have been on the field as much as he was... and Richardson sucks vs. the run (yet he was out there for the majority of snaps). Meanwhile, guys like O'Neill and A. Harris were on the bench forever until injuries forced you to play them. Both were HUGE upgrades over the previous (coach's pets) players. And don't get me started on Compton. If he was better than everyone else on the roster, then you might as well just fire Spielman. But I don't think he was better than Isadora. I just think that you guys were blind to it. I say that, because I no longer trust your coaches to put the best players on the field. Sometimes you just so close to the forest that you can't see the trees. I don't know how else to explain it: but the best players were not playing this year. And it cost "us".
Wow, very nicely put. It would be nice if he could read it.
![[Image: vb8ur5p0m3hk.jpeg]](https://vikefans.com/vfforums/uploads/editor/ac/vb8ur5p0m3hk.jpeg) Boy, was it just me or did Zim look really relieved today...?
Quote: @"pumpf" said:
I've been a fan of Zimmer since he got here. I even supported his foundation by buying a bunch of T-shirts. But it's time to call it like it is: this is pure BS. For a guy who was famous for saying, "Don't tell me about the labor, just show me the baby", he sure talks alot about the labor- without accepting any of the responsibility (at least not in these quotes).
Here we go:
- "Chip on our shoulder... nasty". Bull. First of all, you didn't have it last year, either, as the Eagles mopped the floor with your "nasty" guys. Second of all, if you really want your team to play with swagger, then stop telling them to "not lose" games. Give them the freedom to go win it (specifically talking about the offense here). If your defense is so badass, then stop trying to protect them with a run first (and always), ball-control mentality. Let 'em sling it... and then turn your "wild dogs" loose.
- "It’s fair to the organization, myself, and the fans to look at everybody" Oh, so now you're worrying about being "fair"? What about last year, when you blocked Stefanski's opportunity for advancement, because you gave loyalty... and then expected it back? You put Stefanski in this position; if you're so loyal, then give him the job. But, if it's all about winning, then you should've said that last year: that you care about winning, not people. Just be honest, coach.
- "We didn't score enough points... play-action is best way to challenge a defense". While the first part may be true... I'm not so sure about the second. We didn't score enough points, because YOU demanded that your OC play ball-control offense- DESPITE the fact that you don't have the OL to do it. You have the OL for a short, quick passing game... which should've been used to set up the run (not the other way around). Yes, generally it all starts with the run- but not when YOU CAN'T RUN IT effectively (against above-average teams). As for play-action: you might feel that way, Coach, but only because your D-Line and LBs couldn't stop the run to save their lives, forcing you to commit more man-power to it, making the play-action pass more deadly (vs. us). Other teams don't have that problem against us... which is why they were able to double team both our receivers- and STILL stop the run. Stop out-smarting yourself on defense (i.e. play it straight up more often, rather than trying to show off your genius)... and take the leash off of the OC and QB. This defense cannot win games by itself. A good offense- on the other hand- can. So let the offense try to win games... and then let the defense do their part. Offense is king, Coach... whether we like it or not.
- "match the offense with the defense's attitude/outlook"??? You demand that the GM get you all the best, shiniest players for the defense... and then wonder why the offense struggles? It's not a matter of attitude... and, although scheme definitely matters, its not that either. It's the players. You have a good QB who you put a leash on, so that he wouldn't turn the ball over too much... and a good set of skill players. You still need a third receiver (who might already be on the roster, but its NOT Treadwell). But what you REALLY need... is to invest some high draft picks on the OL. The 2 "best" players on the OL were players that were drafted in the 3rd round our higher. The next best player (Reiff) was a (somewhat) expensive FA pick-up. The rest were late draft picks or FA scrubs. Frankly, you get out of the offense what you put into it. Start investing some draft picks there and see what happens.
One other thing: you better figure out why your staff has such a blind-spot for certain players. Treadwell shouldn't have been on the field as much as he was... and Richardson sucks vs. the run (yet he was out there for the majority of snaps). Meanwhile, guys like O'Neill and A. Harris were on the bench forever until injuries forced you to play them. Both were HUGE upgrades over the previous (coach's pets) players. And don't get me started on Compton. If he was better than everyone else on the roster, then you might as well just fire Spielman. But I don't think he was better than Isadora. I just think that you guys were blind to it. I say that, because I no longer trust your coaches to put the best players on the field. Sometimes you just so close to the forest that you can't see the trees. I don't know how else to explain it: but the best players were not playing this year. And it cost "us".
Excellent breakdown pumpf. Unfortunately we have to go through another year of this crap before he and Spielman are gone. Next year will be more of the same.
Talk is cheap. Long, long time to September. I will only believe what I see to be true.
For good or bad I do think we will have a different image next year.
|
