Do we have more than one elephant in the room?

I guess when you make it into the final 4 of the NFC, you need to take a little perspective....and I say this being just as critical as any fan within the bounds of moderate thinking. JMO, but your play calling works when your areas of foundation, like the O-line and D-line, perform at least decently. Otherwise, you can't execute your play-calling very consistently. When a team dominates at the line, you are extremely limited in how you can respond and even IF you can respond. The Vikings were tired, that played a role. Cousins seemed reluctant to pull the trigger a few times, which we've seen happen. Zero run game hurt offensive game calling. Injuries to the secondary hurt.

It was a disappointing game to watch, but I'm not ready to shit on everything (and I'm not saying you are doing that, PF). I think tweaks need to be made and upgrades implemented wherever possible and practical in one off-season. Again, only so much can be done between now and next September but I don't think a ton HAS to be done, either. 

I find myself optimistic after this loss and the season in total.

Or at Chicago... If you see nothing is working like all above mentioned games, you need to be able to adjust on the fly. We do not.

@"StickyBun" said: I guess when you make it into the final 4 of the NFC, you need to take a little perspective....and I say this being just as critical as any fan within the bounds of moderate thinking. JMO, but your play calling works when your areas of foundation, like the O-line and D-line, perform at least decently. Otherwise, you can't execute your play-calling very consistently. When a team dominates at the line, you are extremely limited in how you can respond and even IF you can respond. The Vikings were tired, that played a role. Cousins seemed reluctant to pull the trigger a few times, which we've seen happen. Zero run game hurt offensive game calling. Injuries to the secondary hurt.

It was a disappointing game to watch, but I'm not ready to shit on everything (and I'm not saying you are doing that, PF). I think tweaks need to be made and upgrades implemented wherever possible and practical in one off-season. Again, only so much can be done between now and next September but I don't think a ton HAS to be done, either. 

I find myself optimistic after this loss and the season in total.

Thats good to hear from others, cause I am as well, truly am optimistic..

I was over this loss a few hours after game end. 

Divisional round with that OL is impressive - and with the limitations they had on D? With the injuries that literally came-up end of season? A mad scramble in Eagan, plenty of long nights I'm sure. 

Just would have liked to have seen more creativity by KS and the offense against some of those teams where we are outclassed in the trenches. SF and GB come to mind. It's actually pretty clear what the Vikings need to do to move-up to those top 3 slots in an NFC that's strong, but nobody unbeatable. 

How about a hurry up offense so they can’t sub in?

How about boot leg to the left to slow the DE down?

How about any change?  Something. 

Tired is a tired excuse.  We would have been beaten if we had two weeks rest and they had one.  

We need a mini rebuild.  EG, XR, LJ - clear up space.  We need a few receivers, DBs, OL, and DL.  

Speed and youth.  

I think the question is whether I am optimistic that this team is moving towards winning a Super Bowl -- winning three games in a row against very good teams.  Putting aside coaching, you have a team that has the worse cap situation and a lot of players who are either descending (Rhodes, Joseph) or have reached the top of the hill and will be descending soon (Griffen, Reiff).  You could argue that the combination of the salary cap situation and the age of key players that the window for this core has closed.

One of the things that strikes me from yesterday was the discussion about how the 9ers used their draft capital on the trenches.  The Vikes have used their draft capital on dbacks.  That differently philosophy showed up yesterday.  Frankly, the best DB picked up during the Zimmer reign has been an undrafted free agent -- which I am still digesting as to what that means for the Zimmer/Speilman draft approach.  I trust Patterson in helping pick Dlineman and developing them but I think you really have to question Zimmer's ability to help in draft assessment of cornerbacks.  I will be upset if the Vikes pick a DB in the first round this year.

It will be an interesting offseason.

@"VikingOracle" said: I think the question is whether I am optimistic that this team is moving towards winning a Super Bowl -- winning three games in a row against very good teams.  Putting aside coaching, you have a team that has the worse cap situation and a lot of players who are either descending (Rhodes, Joseph) or have reached the top of the hill and will be descending soon (Griffen, Reiff).  You could argue that the combination of the salary cap situation and the age of key players that the window for this core has closed.

One of the things that strikes me from yesterday was the discussion about how the 9ers used their draft capital on the trenches.  The Vikes have used their draft capital on dbacks.  That differently philosophy showed up yesterday.  Frankly, the best DB picked up during the Zimmer reign has been an undrafted free agent -- which I am still digesting as to what that means for the Zimmer/Speilman draft approach.  I trust Patterson in helping pick Dlineman and developing them but I think you really have to question Zimmer's ability to help in draft assessment of cornerbacks.  I will be upset if the Vikes pick a DB in the first round this year.

It will be an interesting offseason.

Someone else pointed this out last week, but Spielman himself seems to be great at finding DEs - he got Griffen, Robison, and even Ray Edwards before Patterson and Zimmer arrived, and I believe he did well at that position in Miami, too. The current coaches may have helped scout Hunter but they thought just as highly of Scott Crichton a year earlier.

Your observation about DB drafting is eye-opening. Zimmer has the "DB whisperer" reputation but he seems to need a lot of prime material for that unit. Maybe he should be the "DB worrier".
I think your concern about drafting a DB early is entirely valid. IMO the primary personnel narrative out of the team this offseason will be about the need to reinforce the defense and especially the backfield: Rhodes declined, we ran out of DBs due to injury, you can never have enough corners, 4 young DBs are free agents and at least some are going to leave - you can already write the day-after-draft justifications.

A room couldn’t hold ‘em...  :s 

@"VikingOracle" said: I think the question is whether I am optimistic that this team is moving towards winning a Super Bowl -- winning three games in a row against very good teams.  Putting aside coaching, you have a team that has the worse cap situation and a lot of players who are either descending (Rhodes, Joseph) or have reached the top of the hill and will be descending soon (Griffen, Reiff).  You could argue that the combination of the salary cap situation and the age of key players that the window for this core has closed.

One of the things that strikes me from yesterday was the discussion about how the 9ers used their draft capital on the trenches.  The Vikes have used their draft capital on dbacks.  That differently philosophy showed up yesterday.  Frankly, the best DB picked up during the Zimmer reign has been an undrafted free agent -- which I am still digesting as to what that means for the Zimmer/Speilman draft approach.  I trust Patterson in helping pick Dlineman and developing them but I think you really have to question Zimmer's ability to help in draft assessment of cornerbacks.  I will be upset if the Vikes pick a DB in the first round this year.

It will be an interesting offseason.

I agree with this. Player evaluation and acquisition has been a problem; in particular at certain position groups.
Errors in player aquisition are leading to salary cap limitations that may restrict flexibility in free agency and player retention in the future.

Some see this team as loaded with talent and on the cusp of a championship. The inference being, the coaching is inadequate.
That's not what I see.

Stefanski had games where he struggled but also had games where his play calling was quite good. And remember, he had Kubiak, Dennison, and others he consulted with throughout the week and during games.
The offense was as much hampered by an O line that was way below championship caliber, a running back who never had a run over 10 yards long for multiple games once injured, and a QB who has a tendency to check down in big moments, rather than risk a pick, despite having open receivers down field. That's what all the sideline bitching between the wide receivers and the QB have been about the past two seasons.

I think the coaching is good enough. I think the roster is overrated, especially on Vikings fan message boards. And I think player evaluation and acquisition is an organizational weakness.

I realize this is a different perspective than most. It's just the way I see it.

Funny about the hurry up.

I've seen us try to go hurry up all season, without a play behind it that mattered. Kirk in his own little world like "lets go! hurry up! get to the line!" I've seen us get them off balance with a play, hurry up to the line, and then go and call a stupid cloud-of-dust running play, making it 3rd down, waaay too many times. Super uncoordinated. We tried to get it going, we stopped when we realized we didn't know how the hell to take advantage of an on paper opportunity. Or maybe Kirk just realized the offensive play calls weren't on the same page...

They ran the Hurry Up at the end of the 1st Half of the Dallas game and easily marched down the field. Ultimately settled for a FG. Ran it for a lot of the 2nd Half against Denver. And in chunks of the 4th Quarter of loss to Seattle.

It just seemed like Stefanski was loath to admit his gameplan wasn't working by going Hurry Up. 

@"FSUVike" said: They ran the Hurry Up at the end of the 1st Half of the Dallas game and easily marched down the field. Ultimately settled for a FG. Ran it for a lot of the 2nd Half against Denver. And in chunks of the 4th Quarter of loss to Seattle.

It just seemed like Stefanski was loath to admit his gameplan wasn't working by going Hurry Up. 

Or Zim was opposed to it.  What does it say about Zimmer if it was as simple as changing tempo and he didnt instruct his OC to do it?

Norv left because of a philosophy difference,  defilippos issue with zim were well chronicled,  but then we assume its Stefanski that insisted on a vanilla approach more often than not?  Sorry I dont buy it.  Some of this shit needs to start falling on zims shoulders as he is the one has said it will be done his way until hes no longer in charge.

Stefanski was here for all of it too. Stefanski was here before Zimmer. Maybe he didn't like Norv's non-WCO ideals. Maybe he didn't jive with the passing-orientated WCO twist DeFelippo ran - maybe the Brad Childress offense is right up Zim's alley, since he is being sold as loving conservative gameplans himself. Maybe he ran to the front office and squealed - the front office must have felt pretty highly of a guy to insist he be a part of multiple staffing changes on that side of the ball...

Our offense looked like 1985 before Zimmer got here.

I posted weeks ago how I felt the hurry up should be implemented more because it got Cousins out of his own head.  Made he play more instinctually instead of analytically.  I think it was a huge mistake not to play that way and I would be interested in knowing why we didn't use it.

@"VikingOracle" said: I posted weeks ago how I felt the hurry up should be implemented more because it got Cousins out of his own head.  Made he play more instinctually instead of analytically.  I think it was a huge mistake not to play that way and I would be interested in knowing why we didn't use it.

Because when it doesnt work it puts the defense back out there that much quicker.

The hurry up screen game and hurry up run game is only as cool as you're coverting the chains. Otherwise, you're still giving them the ball back; you've just given yourself less time to respond to their possession.

I think we went uptempo fairly often throughout the season - it doesnt resonate the same as marching down the field when you gather 6 yards out of it and punt. 

I thought we perfected the hurry up and give them the ball back offense. 

Without the OL to be able to establish the run against everyone (not just bad defensive teams), this offense doesn't work.

Well, we cant draft a QB, we cant fix the OL. Now, the defense is getting long in the tooth and we still need corners after drafting them high the past four years. 
Typing this while watching GB play a very good game against Seattle. #JustFrustrating

Without a dominant oline hurry up offense isnt something they can execute.

@"pumpf" said: Without the OL to be able to establish the run against everyone (not just bad defensive teams), this offense doesn't work.

That was the biggest difference in this game...  we couldn't run the ball.  This offense is much more explosive when the run game is working.  Look at our losses this year...  except the Week 2 game against GB (and we lost that one for very different reasons) all were games where Dalvin was essentially shut down on the ground.  Then you add in all the three and outs on offense and our defense starts getting gassed in the 2nd half...  SF starts moving the ball on the ground and it was all over.

@"StickyBun" said: I guess when you make it into the final 4 of the NFC, you need to take a little perspective....and I say this being just as critical as any fan within the bounds of moderate thinking. JMO, but your play calling works when your areas of foundation, like the O-line and D-line, perform at least decently. Otherwise, you can't execute your play-calling very consistently. When a team dominates at the line, you are extremely limited in how you can respond and even IF you can respond. The Vikings were tired, that played a role. Cousins seemed reluctant to pull the trigger a few times, which we've seen happen. Zero run game hurt offensive game calling. Injuries to the secondary hurt.

It was a disappointing game to watch, but I'm not ready to shit on everything (and I'm not saying you are doing that, PF). I think tweaks need to be made and upgrades implemented wherever possible and practical in one off-season. Again, only so much can be done between now and next September but I don't think a ton HAS to be done, either. 

I find myself optimistic after this loss and the season in total.

Good perspective Sticky.  I guess all things considered, I wasn't expecting a miracle Saturday.  We couldn't get the run going against their quick DL and that ruins our offense when the run isn't a threat. 

Hopefully Stef can figure that out, we can get some more talent at on the OL and keep moving forward without major changes.