Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Breaking it down; why are there leaks in the Longboat?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
thestonedkoala


Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 4051
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:47 am    Post subject: Breaking it down; why are there leaks in the Longboat? Reply with quote

I don't want this to turn into a negative thread. If you have anything negative, try to put a positive spin on it. I know that's going to be difficult when trying to break down the Vikings journey 7 years ago, when the Wilfs purchased them from Red McCombs in 2005, but let's try okay?

- We knew we were going to have a small window of opportunity to get to the Super Bowl. We did our best with Favre, P. Will, and Hutchinson and we came up short. There is nothing wrong with that. The team was built to win then and they did. There was no backup plan though, it seemed, if the organization didn't win out. We acquired some talented players in those years that are still with the organization but they aren't at key positions. The rebuild though is going better than expected with some surprising wins this year and we need to stay on course.

- Our draft is bad up until this year. Peterson Harvin and Greenway were great picks. Cook is solid along with Robison and Rudolph (if we ever use him) but we had a lot of redundancy and wasted picks. This is what sprung the leaks in the Longship but at least Spielman is starting to patch them up, even though it might be a slow process. He made some great picks last year outside the first round with Robinson and Walsh highlighting the picks.

- No leadership from the coaches on down to the players. There is a keen distinction between veteran and leader. With Smith, we might have finally found a leader on defense but our offense still needs to step it up. Peterson can only do so much.

- No weapons outside of Harvin and Peterson. It's a mixture of bad drafting and poor off-seasons. I know Harvin and Peterson are some of the best players in the game but they can't do it all.

- Slow reaction to change. It's not easy to boot a coach or change a structure but the Vikings seem very slow to change when there is an obvious problem. Between getting Wright on the field to the Triangle of Authority to hanging onto Childress for so long, the Vikings tend to do everything at a snail's pace. It's not always bad as you want to evaluate but sometimes change is good.

What do you guys think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3596
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the two things that really blew up in the Vikes' face were 1. age, and 2. the Triangle.

For the first part, it was indicative of a backwards approach to building a team. Rather than 'reloading' every year through the draft, like the top teams do, we were focussed on veteran FA signings, only using the draft to add a high pick that can start now, and not drafting enough replacements. We ended up with a team that was very good, but also too old to be of use going forward, and very thin in the replacement section.

I think that the team has finally realized that 'winning now' is stupid, and doesn't work in the NFL. There's 32 teams vying for a superbowl every year, your best shot is to keep rebuilding the team, and be relevant every year, in the long run that gives you more shots at the play-offs, and creates a winning atmosphere.

As far as the triangle, it has been talked to death, but in the long run it doesn't work. Now that we finally have a single GM making personnel decisions there is a clear direction that everyone can work towards. Now I wasn't present in the draft room, but it seems obvious to me that rather than reach a consensus, the moves were torn between either win-now (Childress), or build through the draft (Spielman).

So in short, a short-term vision that was bound to collapse sooner than later, and conflicting voices in the organisation.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47879
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trading that third round pick for Randy Moss seems like the defining moment of what the Childress era became. Trading two valuable picks for a backup RB was also another. I think these two moves really showed that Childress was all about winning now and that was the downfall of this team. There just wasnt enough of a concern for the future and when age and salary crept up, what we saw were the disasterous 2010 and 2011 seasons. 2010 was harder to take because that team was suppose to be good, but all the veterans seemed to age together at the perfect time becoming useless. 2011 was really the first year of the rebuild, expectations were low. 2012 was suppose to be the same but its obvious that this team is atleast competitive and has a large amount of youth to lean on going forward.

Things should have been blown up around 2009. Brett Favre should never have happened. Trading for Moss and Gerhart should never have happened. Donovan McNabb should never have happened. Childress was a desperate coach trying to do everything in his power to win now, probably to save his job and image since most of MN hated the guy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 73729
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Applause to thestonedkoala for the intent and tone of this thread.
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CriminalMind


Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 4844
Location: Toronto, CA
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I remember correctly, I thought the downfall (for a few years) of the organization would be Z extending Chilldress mid-season, when we all knew we were successful that season due to excellent QB play (and not that Chilldress had 'finally' put the peices together)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[UMN]


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 13303
Location: Desolation Row
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It all starts back to Childress.

He wanted to win and we had a good run, but he did not care about the future of the team (because he knew he wouldn't be here if they didn't win a Super Bowl). Not having a proper GM really what hurt us. Childress was able to sell the future and it backfired.

With Spielman in charge I think the future looks much brighter, and having a true GM in charge should prevent such short sighted roster management.


edit: post 10k Cool
_________________
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn,
Plays wasted words, proves to warn,
That he not busy being born is busy dying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 73729
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[UMN] wrote:
It all starts back to Childress.

but that would really mean it all goes back to the Wilfs, hiring him so quickly.

who else was looking for a coaching job at that time, by the way? not that we can lament about the past and the what if's of life.


[UMN] wrote:
edit: post 10k Cool

yay!

Applause
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[UMN]


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 13303
Location: Desolation Row
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vike daddy wrote:
[UMN] wrote:
It all starts back to Childress.

but that would really mean it all goes back to the Wilfs, hiring him so quickly.

who else was looking for a coaching job at that time, by the way? not that we can lament about the past and the what if's of life.

I don't think you can fault Wilf for hiring Childress; at that point in time Childress was a very good HC candidate. He had been the OC in Philly for four years and in each of those 4 years they went to the NFC Championship and they also got to a Super Bowl. He also was seen as a key force in shaping McNabb into the seemingly future HOF QB that he was back then. Childress also was seen as a more disciplined leader, which is what the team needed after Tice.

In 2006 Wilf also interviewed Ted Cottrell, Jim Caldwell and Al Saunders. Childress was probably the best choice out of those guys. Green Bay wanted to interview Childress but we were able to stop him from leaving town.

I actually still think he is a very good coach, he is just terrible as a face of a team and at managing a roster. As a coordinator or position coach I think he is definitely an asset to a team.
_________________
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn,
Plays wasted words, proves to warn,
That he not busy being born is busy dying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 47879
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember in 2006, I was a huge proponent of Gary Kubiak. I talked about him a lot as my top choice that year. Kubiak doesnt really have much more success than Childress at this point, but it makes you wonder if Kubiak was hired.

Kubiak traded for Schaub in 2007. The Vikings had a mid first round pick, 2 2nd round picks and 2 3rd rd picks in 2006. They could have put together a very nice trade package for Schaub in 2006. In 2007, the Vikings probably dont take Adrian Peterson since Kubiak comes from the Shanahan ZBS line of thought.

Overall, Childress wasnt a terrible hire. He was given credit for developing McNabb and had a very strong resume. He looked like a good fit to build the WCO and he came from a top notch organization in Philly. I think some of his control issues ultimately cost him his job and likely cost he team the ability to plan for the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 73729
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Kubiak traded for Schaub in 2007. The Vikings had a mid first round pick, 2 2nd round picks and 2 3rd rd picks in 2006. They could have put together a very nice trade package for Schaub in 2006.

i strongly advocated for us to trade for Schaub at the time, i remember. fans said he was traded for way too high of a price.
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 14293
Location: Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought Childress was the first and only guy we looked at? That could be wrong (violation of the Rooney Rule?), but he was one of the first coaches signed that offseason.

I think Childress just got desperate. Every year the record was improving, but there was a sense of urgency to get things done quick. To make the playoffs and win.

So we sacrificed some picks/money to get "win now" guys. Brett Favre, Bernard Berrian, Randy Moss, and to an extent Toby Gerhart.

I think this team realized their mistake and are working away from that line of thinking. But, it seems we are still recovering from those bad moves.

Hopefully by next year we can bring in enough talent to this team to really look like a playoff team, AND see some of these young guys develop into legit players (Ponder, Rudolph, Josh Robinson, Harrison Smith, Ballard etc.)

I don't think we are looking at another 3 years of rebuilding. It'd be great if we could get most of that done this upcoming offseason.
_________________

Not your typical Vikings anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
LostRoadStone


Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 1001
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vike daddy wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
Kubiak traded for Schaub in 2007. The Vikings had a mid first round pick, 2 2nd round picks and 2 3rd rd picks in 2006. They could have put together a very nice trade package for Schaub in 2006.

i strongly advocated for us to trade for Schaub at the time, i remember. fans said he was traded for way too high of a price.

If the Vikings would have traded for Schaub, they most likely would have swapped first round picks, which is what Atlanta and Houston did, which means that in all probability, Adrian Peterson would not be a Minnesota Viking.
_________________


Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I am not a sports agent, a player, a coach, or an NFL front office executive and I don't play one on TV. So basically, there's a good chance I'm full of BS, but maybe not...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thestonedkoala


Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 4051
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I don't think it was Childress persay. I think it was hanging onto Frazier for so long. We lost out on Jim Harbaugh as a coach (don't know if he would've came but still). To be quite honest, there hasn't been a good coach hiring for a while. John Fox might be another but can't tell if that's Manning or Fox?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 9065
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Assuming this is the tone.....

1. Using a 2nd and 3rd round pick on a guy you only want to touch the ball 5 times a game (Gerhart). He's a very good RB, but that's too much resource to use on a backup.

2. Mediocre to bad free agent signings for several years now. I would have preferred Vincent Jackson to John Carlson. Where is the one big-time hidden gem in 3-5 years?

3. Overpaying for Carlson.

4. I have no issue with the Favre decision. I think that was the right thing to do. Nothing about that sacrificed the future. I disagree VERY strongly with the concept that "win now" is always wrong. Very strongly. That attempt to win now got them one bad pass from the Super Bowl. Totally worth it. It was the other decisions that hurt them.

5. Thinking OGs grow on 5-7th round trees and can be found "easily".

6. Greenway's salary eats way too much cap for his production. If Greenway was cheaper, and they had not signed Carlson, they could have the same salary number, and Jackson or some other player in FA.

7. The belief that you cannot draft players, and sign free agents, and still build for the future, that there is this "either, or" false dichotomy.
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LostRoadStone


Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 1001
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Ultra conservative philosophy, both on offense and defense.

2. No vocal leadership.
_________________


Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I am not a sports agent, a player, a coach, or an NFL front office executive and I don't play one on TV. So basically, there's a good chance I'm full of BS, but maybe not...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group