Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
He at least needs to make the playoffs. For the first time in his tenure with Minnesota, defense is a problem. You can't blame Zimmer for losing half his defense to injury last year. But the Vikings brought in a dozen free agents and it's still no better.
Zimmer was never a top game planner or game manager. So if you take away the one thing he does very well, then he's left with nothing.
Missing the leader of the defense in Barr has likey had an impact, so we'll see if his return makes a difference.
I think it's a stretch to say our defense is a problem this year... no one (other than the Jags of all teams) has stopped the Cardinals offense... the defense did a great job in the 2nd half of that game. We had a few mistakes really hurt us against Cincy in Week 1 but our offense was mostly to blame with all the penalties and failed drives in the first half. Otherwise we shut down the Seahawks most of the game and held the Browns to 14 points. Not sure what the defense could have done better in other games? Let's face it, all these new faces on defense need time to gel, but they've played good enough for this team to be 3-1. Our kicker let us down one game and our offense was inconsistent in 2 others.
Well, if you look at my other post on the topic, I'm not just blaming the defense. The whole team is out of sync, each week finding new and different ways to drop games.
The OL is lights out one game, terrible the next. Kicker's been really good but misses a 37-yard game winner. That IDL group should be playing the run a lot better than they have. The whole defensive scheme is predicated on the idea that the run can be managed by the DL, and they just haven't been doing that as well as they should. And who knows what's going on with Breeland and Dantzler?
I expect it to gel eventually and render this thread moot. I just hope it's not too late when it does.
This is a good point and something I didnt think about. I suppose a partial reason why the Pats have had a dynasty is having coaches there for a long time. We have so many first year coaches at their position or first year as coach with the team, so you're going to have those inconsistencies and unfortunately that gets very frustrating for the fans.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
I expect it to gel eventually and render this thread moot. I just hope it's not too late when it does.
I think this is why you need to look at the entirety of Zim's career with the Vikings. Coaches that have been with a team this long already have had their teams "gel" enough to make a SB. At some point, you just need to say Zim has had enough time. No more excuses. He still has plenty of games to meet our respective expectations, let's see if he does so.
you dobt have one option listed….
- He is done no matter what happens
Thats the one I would select. Distant second would be winning the superbowl
Quote: @mblack said:
you dobt have one option listed….
- He is done no matter what happens
Thats the one I would select. Distant second would be winning the superbowl
You would want him gone even if we won the Super Bowl this year? Lolz what?
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
Here is another way to look at it:
It is 2013 and you are hiring a new coach. If you were told that coach would lead the Vikings to an overall record of 65-48-1 record across 8 seasons, a playoff record of 2-3, 2 division crowns and a 17-41 (29%) record against teams that finish with winning records -- would you have hired him? That is 8 years of your Viking fandom that you will never get back. Maybe as you get older, you understand that better.
I guess I don’t understand this perspective. What is your point? It sounds like your point is just that you
are unhappy. What does your perspective give
you if you look at all of our history rather than just Zimmer’s tenure? My gut feeling says that you’d say something
like, “The Vikings haven’t won a SB and have been a complete waste of time and
I regret having wasted all the Sundays in my life” Is that in the ballpark?
Quote: @Hawkvike25 said:
@ mblack said:
you dobt have one option listed….
- He is done no matter what happens
Thats the one I would select. Distant second would be winning the superbowl
You would want him gone even if we won the Super Bowl this year? Lolz what?
Yup. Because he is not winning the superbowl this year so that option is as good as inexistent. That is how much I want him gone.Enough with the settling.” it is time to try something different.
Quote: @mblack said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
@ mblack said:
you dobt have one option listed….
- He is done no matter what happens
Thats the one I would select. Distant second would be winning the superbowl
You would want him gone even if we won the Super Bowl this year? Lolz what?
Yup. Because he is not winning the superbowl this year so that option is as good as inexistent. That is how much I want him gone.Enough with the settling.” it is time to try something different.
I agree with not settling, but the literal question is what does he need to do and if he needs to win the super bowl and does you still want him gone? You want to fire the coach right after winning a super bowl?
The fan base doesn't seem to mind mediocrity, why can him? Give him an extension.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ VikingOracle said:
Here is another way to look at it:
It is 2013 and you are hiring a new coach. If you were told that coach would lead the Vikings to an overall record of 65-48-1 record across 8 seasons, a playoff record of 2-3, 2 division crowns and a 17-41 (29%) record against teams that finish with winning records -- would you have hired him? That is 8 years of your Viking fandom that you will never get back. Maybe as you get older, you understand that better.
I guess I don’t understand this perspective. What is your point? It sounds like your point is just that you
are unhappy. What does your perspective give
you if you look at all of our history rather than just Zimmer’s tenure? My gut feeling says that you’d say something
like, “The Vikings haven’t won a SB and have been a complete waste of time and
I regret having wasted all the Sundays in my life” Is that in the ballpark?
It is about having hope, feeling that the team is striving for greatness. It is about a commitment to chasing championships. And yes, it about a timeline; when the end is closer than the beginning.
Think about it this way, if Red still owned the Vikings, how enthused would you be for every Sunday, every season? Here in LA, Frank McCourt owned the Dodgers and used the team to pay off his debt. Over his ownership period, the Dodgers was an NL wild card in 2006, lose in the NL championship in 2008, again in 2009, in 2011 they still have a winning record but their attendance dramatically decreased. So, even with success in terms of making the playoffs and having a winning record, the fan stopped coming to the games. People knew McCourt was not committed to winning.
You want the owner to feel the same pain in losing every week that you do. If the Wilfs are satisfied with 9 win seasons, well, then there is a problem. I have always felt the Wilfs were committed to bringing championship not just getting a good return on their investment. It sounds like you are happy just seeing a good game, happy the Vikes win more than they lose. Well, that is probably a healthy way to stay happy. Personally, I want to see a championship and I want to feel the owner is also committed to that goal.
Playoffs or he and Rick should go. They are good, but we need a shot at great.
Look what AZ and CLE and the Bolts etc did, of course the Browns had a zillion top 5 picks
|
