Does anyone know Zimmer’s record against .500 teams?
A lot has been made about Cousins’ poor record but I can’t imagine Zimmer’s being much better. Does anyone know where to find it without having to do all the research?
Its not great.
You'd want to peel that back for road vs home and them compare that to NFL average. I suspect few teams win on the road vs winning teams consistently.
Vikings W-L under Zimmer (against teams that are .500 or better)
2014 (1-7)
Wins: Carolina*
Losses: New England, @ Green Bay, Detroit, @ Buffalo, Green Bay, @ Detroit, @ Miami
2015 (3-4)
Wins: Kansas City, @ Atlanta, @ Green Bay
Losses: @ Denver, Green Bay, Seattle, @ Arizona
2016 (5-6)
Wins: @ Tennessee, Green Bay, New York Giants, Houston, Arizona*,
Losses: Detroit, @ Washington, @ Detroit, Dallas, Indianapolis, @ Green Bay
2017 (5-3)
Wins: New Orleans, Baltimore, LA Rams, @ Detroit, @ Atlanta
Losses: @ Pittsburgh, Detroit, @ Carolina
Overall: 14-20
Home: 9-9
Away: 5-11
I'm not including the 2018 season yet because the season isn't over. However, through 4 full seasons... Zimmer is 14-20 against teams with a .500 or better record including both home and away.
I don't know what this means or how it compares to other teams over that same span... but there you have it.
And you are welcome for the research.
BOOM
The one flaw to this... we did beat some teams that finished 7-9 over those years as well that weren't included. If the Vikings had lost, those teams would have finished .500. Is there really a difference between a 7-9 or 8-8 team? Probably not.
But there you have it.
I'm guessing you are referring to the Cousins stat that he's 4-23 (15%) against winning teams (teams that finish above .500 at the end of the year), not .500 or above.
Nice job Wetlander. For at strictly winning teams, take out Miami in 2014, Atlanta in 2015 and Arizona and Indianapolis in 2016. 12-18 (40%). I would bet that is above average and it's greatly skewed by Zimmer's 1st year (11-12, 48%, without that rookie coaching season).
@"silverjoel" said: I'm guessing you are referring to the Cousins stat that he's 4-23 (15%) against winning teams (teams that finish above .500 at the end of the year), not .500 or above.Nice job Wetlander. For at strictly winning teams, take out Miami in 2014, Atlanta in 2015 and Arizona and Indianapolis in 2016. 12-18 (40%). I would bet that is above average and it's greatly skewed by Zimmer's 1st year (11-12, 48%, without that rookie coaching season).
I don't think it's fair to Zim to take out the 8-8 teams he beat. Those teams were 8-7 without the lose to the Vikings. IOW, outside of his rookie season and this season, it definitely was not a foregone conclusion when playing a winning team that we lost.
Nice work Wetlander :)
@"FessVike" said: Nice work Wetlander :)I aim to please...
@"Scoog" said:I agree. I personally think if one does any opponent record analysis, one should remove the games against the opponent. However, if I were a betting man, the Cousins stat in question does not go that in depth. Simply if the team finished with a winning record, they count. That's the only reason I removed .500 teams because I bet the stat in question did.@"silverjoel" said: I'm guessing you are referring to the Cousins stat that he's 4-23 (15%) against winning teams (teams that finish above .500 at the end of the year), not .500 or above.Nice job Wetlander. For at strictly winning teams, take out Miami in 2014, Atlanta in 2015 and Arizona and Indianapolis in 2016. 12-18 (40%). I would bet that is above average and it's greatly skewed by Zimmer's 1st year (11-12, 48%, without that rookie coaching season).
I don't think it's fair to Zim to take out the 8-8 teams he beat. Those teams were 8-7 without the lose to the Vikings. IOW, outside of his rookie season and this season, it definitely was not a foregone conclusion when playing a winning team that we lost.
Why not focus on the KEY win/loss statistic? Playoffs.
Regular season records and statistics are useful, sure. But postseason trumps (excuse the term) all.
In NFL week 2, if team A (0-1), beats team B (1-0), does that outcome REALLY have any significance? Does it matter more what the w/l record is at the date of the game, or the record at the end of the season?
Was beating the 2016 Vikings after week 6 really an accomplishment?
Zimmer has a bad record in the playoffs as a DC and OC. Spielman has an atrocious playoff record as VP/GM with Chicago, Miami and Minnesota. Cousins has, thus far, proven to be, shall we say, "non-clutch" in key matchups against good teams, and his playoff record as a starter is the same as that of Joe Webb.
How do they change these facts? Simple....WIN PLAYOFF GAMES!!
Run 40 times, pass 50 times, play cover 2, play press coverage, blitz, don't blitz, make a 65 yard FG, miss a 30 yard FG....,,I don't give a rats azz HOW you win, just WIN.
Oh, and when you LOSE, don't you dare tell me again that the team wasn't prepared. That is not an excuse, nor is it an acceptable REASON for a loss. Not at the professional sports level. That's the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework".
I've heard for the past 2 years, ad nauseum, that the Vikings have the BEST roster in the NFL, the best GM in the NFL, a GREAT HC and a rising young offensive guru as OC. Well, time to put up or shut up. Win out and win at least 2 playoff games, and I'll concede that this team is above average.
One and done? Underachieving is the best that can be said for that outcome. Missing the playoffs? LOL, that would be truly pathetic, but the bonus for me would be to read all the EXCUSES why the Vikings choked, and also why TRUE fans should ignore it and expect a championship in 2019!!
But let's stay in 2018. Let's see what the Vikings ACTUALLY DO, instead of discussing what they SHOULD have done.
No more "if this happened" or "if this didn't happen" bullshit. They win and make a run in the playoffs, or they choke as usual. No in between. Do or do not, there is no try (said that, I did)
If this team misses the playoffs, they are definitely the most underachieving Vikings team of the past 35 yesrs, and possibly EVER.
@"njvike" said: Why not focus on the KEY win/loss statistic? Playoffs.Regular season records and statistics are useful, sure. But postseason trumps (excuse the term) all.
In NFL week 2, if team A (0-1), beats team B (1-0), does that outcome REALLY have any significance? Does it matter more what the w/l record is at the date of the game, or the record at the end of the season?
Was beating the 2016 Vikings after week 6 really an accomplishment?
Zimmer has a bad record in the playoffs as a DC and OC. Spielman has an atrocious playoff record as VP/GM with Chicago, Miami and Minnesota. Cousins has, thus far, proven to be, shall we say, "non-clutch" in key matchups against good teams, and his playoff record as a starter is the same as that of Joe Webb.
How do they change these facts? Simple....WIN PLAYOFF GAMES!!
Run 40 times, pass 50 times, play cover 2, play press coverage, blitz, don't blitz, make a 65 yard FG, miss a 30 yard FG....,,I don't give a rats azz HOW you win, just WIN.
Oh, and when you LOSE, don't you dare tell me again that the team wasn't prepared. That is not an excuse, nor is it an acceptable REASON for a loss. Not at the professional sports level. That's the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework".
I've heard for the past 2 years, ad nauseum, that the Vikings have the BEST roster in the NFL, the best GM in the NFL, a GREAT HC and a rising young offensive guru as OC. Well, time to put up or shut up. Win out and win at least 2 playoff games, and I'll concede that this team is above average.
One and done? Underachieving is the best that can be said for that outcome. Missing the playoffs? LOL, that would be truly pathetic, but the bonus for me would be to read all the EXCUSES why the Vikings choked, and also why TRUE fans should ignore it and expect a championship in 2019!!
But let's stay in 2018. Let's see what the Vikings ACTUALLY DO, instead of discussing what they SHOULD have done.
No more "if this happened" or "if this didn't happen" bullshit. They win and make a run in the playoffs, or they choke as usual. No in between. Do or do not, there is no try (said that, I did)
If this team misses the playoffs, they are definitely the most underachieving Vikings team of the past 35 yesrs, and possibly EVER.
Not really. Most underachieving Vikings teams:
1972 Going 7-7 after going 12-2, 12-2, 11-3 the previous 3 seasons and getting Fran back.
1990 Going 6-10 after 11-5, 10-6 previous 2 seasons
2001 Going 5-11 after 11-5 NFC title game appearance
2004 Going 8-8 after 9-7 losing NFC North title at Arizona
2010 going 6-10 after 12-4 losing NFCCG at New Orleans
2016 Going 8-8 after 11-5 blowing Wildcard vs Seattle
@"Chuckf" said: Not really. Most underachieving Vikings teams:1972 Going 7-7 after going 12-2, 12-2, 11-3 the previous 3 seasons and getting Fran back.
1990 Going 6-10 after 11-5, 10-6 previous 2 seasons
2001 Going 5-11 after 11-5 NFC title game appearance
2004 Going 8-8 after 9-7 losing NFC North title at Arizona
2010 going 6-10 after 12-4 losing NFCCG at New Orleans
2016 Going 8-8 after 11-5 blowing Wildcard vs Seattle
You might want to check the expectations of a lot of those teams.
Going 8-8 after going 9-7 is MORE disappointing than (thus far) a team that has been presented ad nauseum as having the BEST roster in the NFL NOT making the playoffs? After guaranteeing a $84M, first ever contract, to Cousins? With the bestest EVER GM in charge of Scouting since 2006? REALLY?
I'll agree with you that numerous Vikings teams have kicked the scrotum of their fan base with a steel tipped boot, but ANOTHER "Schpielman Special" (aka, a ZERO PLAYOFF WIN SEASON) in 2018 would be especially egregious. JMO.Happy Holidays
@"njvike" said:@"Chuckf" said: Not really. Most underachieving Vikings teams:1972 Going 7-7 after going 12-2, 12-2, 11-3 the previous 3 seasons and getting Fran back.
1990 Going 6-10 after 11-5, 10-6 previous 2 seasons
2001 Going 5-11 after 11-5 NFC title game appearance
2004 Going 8-8 after 9-7 losing NFC North title at Arizona
2010 going 6-10 after 12-4 losing NFCCG at New Orleans
2016 Going 8-8 after 11-5 blowing Wildcard vs Seattle
You might want to check the expectations of a lot of those teams.
Going 8-8 after going 9-7 is MORE disappointing than (thus far) a team that has been presented ad nauseum as having the BEST roster in the NFL NOT making the playoffs? After guaranteeing a $84M, first ever contract, to Cousins? With the bestest EVER GM in charge of Scouting since 2006? REALLY?I'll agree with you that numerous Vikings teams have kicked the scrotum of their fan base with a steel tipped boot, but ANOTHER "Schpielman Special" (aka, a ZERO PLAYOFF WIN SEASON) in 2018 would be especially egregious. JMO.Happy Holidays
I hear you and do not disagree, but you said it would be the the "most underachieving Vikings team" and I would say I disagree. YES the 2003 Vikings went 9-7 LOST NOBODY and actually had what appeared to be a decent draft and I know I was primed for the Vikings to take over the division. Culpper was in his 4th year as a starter, Vikings were LOADED with great young talent and they absolutely flopped.
Thats a hell of a list.
1972, 2001 and 2010 would be the most egregious downturns...
Can always count on the Vikings to break my heart.
@"Chuckf" said:@"njvike" said:@"Chuckf" said: Not really. Most underachieving Vikings teams:1972 Going 7-7 after going 12-2, 12-2, 11-3 the previous 3 seasons and getting Fran back.
1990 Going 6-10 after 11-5, 10-6 previous 2 seasons
2001 Going 5-11 after 11-5 NFC title game appearance
2004 Going 8-8 after 9-7 losing NFC North title at Arizona
2010 going 6-10 after 12-4 losing NFCCG at New Orleans
2016 Going 8-8 after 11-5 blowing Wildcard vs Seattle
You might want to check the expectations of a lot of those teams.
Going 8-8 after going 9-7 is MORE disappointing than (thus far) a team that has been presented ad nauseum as having the BEST roster in the NFL NOT making the playoffs? After guaranteeing a $84M, first ever contract, to Cousins? With the bestest EVER GM in charge of Scouting since 2006? REALLY?I'll agree with you that numerous Vikings teams have kicked the scrotum of their fan base with a steel tipped boot, but ANOTHER "Schpielman Special" (aka, a ZERO PLAYOFF WIN SEASON) in 2018 would be especially egregious. JMO.Happy Holidays
I hear you and do not disagree, but you said it would be the the "most underachieving Vikings team" and I would say I disagree. YES the 2003 Vikings went 9-7 LOST NOBODY and actually had what appeared to be a decent draft and I know I was primed for the Vikings to take over the division. Culpper was in his 4th year as a starter, Vikings were LOADED with great young talent and they absolutely flopped.
Fair enough. There's certainly no shortage of Viking's underachieving teams, that's for sure! I still gotta go with this team if they pull another Schpielman Special. I always thought Culpepper was wildly over-rated, and his teams' failures were expected by me. Although, again, I give him credit for the best Vikings victory of this century thus far. Winning as a huge road underdog to the Favre-led Packers in the playoffs is hard to top.Well, at least we can agree that the one thing Vikings fans can count on year in and year out is ultimate disappointment.... So, we got that going for us!
Happy Holidays
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.