Vikings have big hopes for McKinnon

[Texas Vike]

You guys don't think we can win 10 games when we won 5, tied another, and lost 4 in the last 60 seconds? I say again, we had LEADS near the very end of those games, with Ponder, with Musgrave, with Frazier, and with more holes.

The talent just keeps improving rapidly and now we have some real coaches who know defense and offense (zimmer and turner) and we have Teddy who will give us the best chance to win day 1 because he's that good. We've replaced Ponder, we replaced Musgrave and Frazier, and we filled most of those holes.

11-5, win the north, win a home playoff game, and go from there.

I think what you see as a 75% chance of certainty to occur, I see as a 15-25% probability. I DO see reason to be optimistic that things are heading in the right direction, but I certainly don't expect the drastic swing that you are anticipating.

[Mothman]

Jim, I agree with Mondry on this. However, I do not think you are out to lunch either: The offense has all the pieces to be successful... IF the QB play is competent. Cassel will be better than Ponder, I think that is safe to say, but will he be that much better? There is plenty of reason to be skeptical there. (As an aside, I'm wondering if we see Bridgewater start... He intrigues me, but it could be draft day hysteria...)

On the defensive side of the ball I think our DL is going to be excellent. However, why does anyone think the back 7 are going to be magnificent? Sure we've got some up and comers back there, but really the only proven player is Harrison Smith. Beyond that we are HOPING Zimmer can make these guys better. I think Zimmer is the guy to do it, but I'm not sure even the Zimmer Magic is going to fix it all by September, there just isn't a great deal of talent back there.

Still, we are gong to have a 4th place schedule and that will help. Also, as Mondry pointed out, we lost quite a few games in the 4th quarter last year. I have to think that under Zimmer that will get better, not worse. If they win those games that is a 10-11 win season. So it is certainly possible.

I've pointed out the same possibility a few times so I don't disagree. However, (and I apologize for beating a dead horse here) I see no reason to refer to a coaching staff that obviously wasn't incompetent as inept. It's the extreme nature of that assessment that bothers me but I guess I've already made that very clear.

Anyway, in light of your comment about close games, I think it makes sense to consider the 2012 season. The new coaching staff may help the Vikings win the kind of close games they kept losing last year but the team did that under the previous coaching staff just a year earlier. In one season, the Vikings were among the league leaders in wins in tight games and a year later, with the same coaching staff, they were on the other end of that stat. I doubt that staff forgot everything that enabled the team to win close games a year earlier. They made some mistakes but we also have to look to other factors, player performances foremost among them, and see the bigger picture. Those other factors will be just as relevant this season so even if Zimmer and his staff do a great job, their contributions can only determine so much. As always, it will be the players who win or lose the games so their health and performance will be essential to success. The Vikes have made a lot of personnel moves to improve themselves this offseason so hopefully, those moves will pay dividends and help the new staff lead the team to wins in close games or better yet, lead the team to wins in games that never even get close!

It is going to be a fun start to the season. Hopefully we are not just completely deflated by week 4 like we were last year.

I sure hope not. The schedule-makers didn't do us any favors in that regard.

[mondry]

I've pointed out the same possibility a few times so I don't disagree. However, (and I apologize for beating a dead horse here) I see no reason to refer to a coaching staff that obviously wasn't incompetent as inept. It's the extreme nature of that assessment that bothers me but I guess I've already made that very clear.

Anyway, in light of your comment about close games, I think it makes sense to consider the 2012 season. The new coaching staff may help the Vikings win the kind of close games they kept losing last year but the team did that under the previous coaching staff just a year earlier. In one season, the Vikings were among the league leaders in wins in tight games and a year later, with the same coaching staff, they were on the other end of that stat. I doubt that staff forgot everything that enabled the team to win close games a year earlier. They made some mistakes but we also have to look to other factors, player performances foremost among them, and see the bigger picture. Those other factors will be just as relevant this season so even if Zimmer and his staff do a great job, their contributions can only determine so much. As always, it will be the players who win or lose the games so their health and performance will be essential to success. The Vikes have made a lot of personnel moves to improve themselves this offseason so hopefully, those moves will pay dividends and help the new staff lead the team to wins in close games or better yet, lead the team to wins in games that never even get close!


I sure hope not. The schedule-makers didn't do us any favors in that regard.

I'm sorry if my use of inept for Frazier, Musgrave, and Williams offends you Jim, and I realize that's extremely harsh, but IMO I don't think it's THAT far off. I mean I just can't fathom how week after week after week the media asks him "Is Patterson gonna have more of an impact, can we get him on the field more?" and Frazier responds with something like "yeah, we want him on the field more, we want to give him more snaps" and the next week he has 2 less snaps than the week before! They'd ask him what happened? and I can only take so much frazier speak "well we'll just have to look at it and figure out why Patterson isn't getting on the field more" As the head coach I expect him to be more on the same page with Musgrave, if Musgrave doesn't want to play Patterson more than don't tell us in an interview you expect him to get on the field more! I'm not saying he should force Musgrave to play a player more, I think that'd be overstepping his boundaries but clearly there was some kind of disconnect.

Against the Redskins LATE in the 2nd quarter I believe it was, with no time outs and no possible chance they run the ball on the goal line and risk going into halftime without any points if a run gets stuffed, Williams calls an all out 11 man run blitz and RG3 has the easiest TD pass of his life just pitching it up to one of the WIDE OPEN guys in the endzone. See for yourself. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... hdown-pass

Mike Mayock - "how are you not aware with zero timeouts that it's probably going to be a play action pass? That's a situation where as a defensive coordinator for minnesota I might want to take a time out and have a conversation with my guys about the situational football."

Rewind to the first bears game and the defense is completely lost on a crucial play on the game winning drive. Chris Cook of all people realizes how screwed they are and practically begs for help, if Frazier and williams are not inept coaches, how do they look at the field, see what's happening (when Chris Cook can) and NOT take action? Video http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... nning-grab

Jay Cutler - "They're going to look at the film and they aren't going to like what they see on that one."

I'm going to stop there because this is off topic and I'm done with the discussion after this, Frazier had some strengths, I don't disagree, but his weaknesses far overshadowed the good he did with this team and I didn't even get into his player personnel decisions or any of that.

[Mothman]

I'm sorry if my use of inept for Frazier, Musgrave, and Williams offends you Jim, and I realize that's extremely harsh, but IMO I don't think it's THAT far off. I mean I just can't fathom how week after week after week the media asks him "Is Patterson gonna have more of an impact, can we get him on the field more?" and Frazier responds with something like "yeah, we want him on the field more, we want to give him more snaps" and the next week he has 2 less snaps than the week before! They'd ask him what happened? and I can only take so much frazier speak "well we'll just have to look at it and figure out why Patterson isn't getting on the field more" As the head coach I expect him to be more on the same page with Musgrave, if Musgrave doesn't want to play Patterson more than don't tell us in an interview you expect him to get on the field more! I'm not saying he should force Musgrave to play a player more, I think that'd be overstepping his boundaries but clearly there was some kind of disconnect.

I don't think it would have been overstepping his boundaries at all.

Against the Redskins LATE in the 2nd quarter I believe it was, with no time outs and no possible chance they run the ball on the goal line and risk going into halftime without any points if a run gets stuffed, Williams calls an all out 11 man run blitz and RG3 has the easiest TD pass of his life just pitching it up to one of the WIDE OPEN guys in the endzone. See for yourself. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... hdown-pass

Mike Mayock - "how are you not aware with zero timeouts that it's probably going to be a play action pass? That's a situation where as a defensive coordinator for minnesota I might want to take a time out and have a conversation with my guys about the situational football."

That play has been trotted out several times now so I'm familiar with it. The idea that Williams should have called a timeout there to discuss situational football with his defense sounds great as Mayock spouts it off but since they were coming out of a Redskins timeout, that wouldn't have made much sense. Williams might have simply made a bad call or they may have screwed up and failed to execute what they were supposed to do. He read the defense the riot act after that first half because they weren't executing so maybe that play was one of the things that set him off. We don't know the why of the play, just the end result.

Rewind to the first bears game and the defense is completely lost on a crucial play on the game winning drive. Chris Cook of all people realizes how screwed they are and practically begs for help, if Frazier and williams are not inept coaches, how do they look at the field, see what's happening (when Chris Cook can) and NOT take action? Video http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... nning-grab

There's no doubt about it. They screwed the pooch on that play.

I'm going to stop there because this is off topic and I'm done with the discussion after this, Frazier had some strengths, I don't disagree, but his weaknesses far overshadowed the good he did with this team and I didn't even get into his player personnel decisions or any of that.

Fair enough.

[PurpleKoolaid]

Webb II. Wasn't Carey still on the board. He's a much better blocker, and a better runner. Plus I want him.

[J. Kapp 11]

I wonder how many Patriot fans are excited about Jimmy Garoppolo? Is McKinnon the heir apparent to Peterson? Is that what you're all excited about? Because I'm trying to imagine how, while the Vikings have Adrian Peterson on the team, anyone would be thrilled to see anyone else carry the ball.

I think McKinnon might be used in a Darren Sproles type role eventually, which is why I'm excited about him. It's not about him replacing AP. It's about complimenting AP with a change of pace. The only change of pace we got with Gerhart was "slower."

[PurpleKoolaid]

I think McKinnon might be used in a Darren Sproles type role eventually, which is why I'm excited about him. It's not about him replacing AP. It's about complimenting AP with a change of pace. The only change of pace we got with Gerhart was "slower."

That's who people compare him too, but Sproles could block and run it up the gut. We should have just picked up Sproles in FA, and grabbed a CB with the McKinnon pick. If we need a RB to replace AD someday, get a traditional RB, one that blocks, runs and can catch.

[J. Kapp 11]

That's who people compare him too, but Sproles could block and run it up the gut. We should have just picked up Sproles in FA, and grabbed a CB with the McKinnon pick. If we need a RB to replace AD someday, get a traditional RB, one that blocks, runs and can catch.

Good idea except that Sproles is older than AP and way more expensive than McKinnon.

[frosted]

That's who people compare him too, but Sproles could block and run it up the gut. We should have just picked up Sproles in FA, and grabbed a CB with the McKinnon pick. If we need a RB to replace AD someday, get a traditional RB, one that blocks, runs and can catch.

Sproles was never a free agent..

[Funkytown]

The only change of pace we got with Gerhart was "slower."

[Eli]

"Change of pace" is meaningless (as well as being one the most overused phrases in football) when you have the best running back in the league. One of the fastest (still) and easily the most powerful back of his size. No matter what his pace or style, the other guy is an inferior ball carrier. You cannot complement Peterson, unless it's to replace him on passing downs to avoid his mediocre pass blocking.

Yes, it's time to lessen the load on Peterson, and when you substitute for him you want a back that is going to produce. I don't care what he looks like. It didn't necessitate finding a running back that doesn't resemble Peterson. The supposed need for a "scat back" make no logical sense to me.

[Funkytown]

A statement like "Our considerable talent rose above the predictable coaching, that's how a 1-7 team finished above 500 for the last half" essentially says that coaching only matters when the team loses, which is a laughable position. Heck, let's take it the next logical step: if your view is accurate and the above .500 finish was a case of the players rising above the coaching then the 1-7 start must have been due to the players underachieving and failing to rise above the coaching. Logically, that puts the responsibility for the poor start back on the players. After all, if they were capable of stepping up and overcoming the supposedly inept coaching they were receiving, why didn't they do so sooner?

Was the 7 game improvement from 2011 to 2012 also due to nothing more than considerable talent rising above predictable coaching? If so, when does coaching actually influence positive outcomes or in your view, is it only reflected in negative outcomes? Where does this leave the new staff? Will they deserve any credit when the team wins or will they only deserve blame when it loses?

Well, from what I remember about people discussing Childress, "the players had to/decided to win in spite of him." So, maybe this is the same thing.

...has to be.

[J. Kapp 11]

"Change of pace" is meaningless (as well as being one the most overused phrases in football) when you have the best running back in the league. One of the fastest (still) and easily the most powerful back of his size. No matter what his pace or style, the other guy is an inferior ball carrier. You cannot complement Peterson, unless it's to replace him on passing downs to avoid his mediocre pass blocking.

Yes, it's time to lessen the load on Peterson, and when you substitute for him you want a back that is going to produce. I don't care what he looks like. It didn't necessitate finding a running back that doesn't resemble Peterson. The supposed need for a "scat back" make no logical sense to me.

Well, I guess since Mike Zimmerman finds value in the change of pace type back, I'll go with the view of the coach.

Also, Darren Sproles (and, the hope is, Jerick McKinnon eventually, as well) can do things AP can't do, such as block and line up as a slot receiver and catch passes in an actual route instead of as a check down receiver.

You'll never get an argument from me that Adrian Peterson is the best ball carrier in the NFL, a title he's deserved from the first time he suited up in 2007, IMO. But he doesn't have the same skill set as a Sproles type player. The change of pace comes in how he's used.

[Mothman]

"Change of pace" is meaningless (as well as being one the most overused phrases in football) when you have the best running back in the league. One of the fastest (still) and easily the most powerful back of his size. No matter what his pace or style, the other guy is an inferior ball carrier. You cannot complement Peterson, unless it's to replace him on passing downs to avoid his mediocre pass blocking.

... or to give him a breather once in a while.

I'd say the nearly 1500 combined yards and 8 TDs Chester Taylor had for the Vikings in 2008 and 2009 demonstrate very clearly that you can complement Peterson with another back.

[Eli]

I'd say the nearly 1500 combined yards and 8 TDs Chester Taylor had for the Vikings in 2008 and 2009 demonstrate very clearly that you can complement Peterson with another back.

Again, you're not "complementing" him. You're just subbing for him. Taylor was a good running back.