Rock Bottom

[DanAS]

First of all, before I get to my Vikes, I'm a huge Stanford fan -- so feel my friggen pain, ladies and gentlemen. That game last night was worthy of the Vikings. And I'm still aching from it -- almost like "12 men," "first miss of the year," "Darren Nelson dropped the ball," "Hail Mary" .... OK, maybe not that much, but at the beginning of the season, I actually thought the Cardinal had more than a 1% chance of winning the National Championship. And since I matriculated there in '77, I never entertained that thought before. Lord knows if we can't beat Utah, we don't even belong in the conversation.

As for the team in Purple, can a team look any worse in all facets of the game than they looked today ... at home ... against lowly Carolina? Even if I step back from today's performance and take stock at the team as a whole, I'm still seeing a team that is God awful in the most critical areas of the game. The name of the game in the modern NFL is passing, and we are abysmal both in terms of (a) completing passes and (b) stopping the other team from completing passes. I don't care if you had a backfield tandem of Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson and Dick Butkus playing behind Pat Williams and Cortez Kennedy in the middle of the defense; no matter how good we were at running and stopping the run, in this generation of football, we'd still get smoked against quality opponents without an elite passing game and pass defense.

I realize he was injured today, but Rhodes looks pretty good to me for a rookie. That was an acquisition that I think will pay dividends down the road. But what's scary is that it is going to take some time to rebuild this team, and when we're ready to compete for a title again, how many of the studs on this team will still be highly productive players? (Imagine the Final Jeopardy music in the background when you try to answer that question -- it's darned hard to come up with any names, isn't it? Maybe AD -- he seems ageless -- but precious few guys come to mind.)

For me, when I think about what the Vikes need to get back to an upward trajectory, the first thing that comes to mind is a new and exciting coaching staff. Then, I start wondering if we don't need to try to upgrade the GM as well. The players are an afterthought -- because once we have the right coach and GM, good players seem to simply follow. But as it stands now, when I think of player personnel, we are so bad in so many areas of the game, that it's hard to even know where to start to plug holes.

Oh. I just thought of the answer. Question -- When the Vikes next contend for a title, which of their current players is most likely to be a highly productive contributor on that squad? Answer: Who is Josh Robinson?

In hindsight, I cannot understand why that question stumped me when the answer was so obvious.

[PurpleMustReign]

Well, Oklahoma got their butts handed to them as well, and although I didn't go there, I still love Sooner football.
This was a bad, bad weekend.

[DanAS]

Well, Oklahoma got their butts handed to them as well, and although I didn't go there, I still love Sooner football.
This was a bad, bad weekend.

After weekends like this, I wonder why I watch. Then I remember -- football is my crack cocaine. Always has been. Always will be.

But I do hate waking up in the middle of the night and feeling pissed about my team losing. That happened last night, and it has happened many times over the years after a Vikes' loss. There is no way it will happen tonight, though. This year's Vikes aren't worth that kind of emotion. You could tell this wasn't going to be the year even back in the pre-season. What you couldn't tell is that things would come apart this badly this quickly.

[Texas Vike]

Well, Oklahoma got their butts handed to them as well, and although I didn't go there, I still love Sooner football.
This was a bad, bad weekend.

I did my grad work at UT, so I was pretty happy with yesterday's Red River Shootout result. It may not save Mack Brown's job, but it has to be worth something. Plus I really dislike Stoops, so it's always fun to beat him.

OP: I agree that today marked a shift. Something has to happen. This coaching staff is starting to look pretty bad. What I don't get is how they looked pretty spirited last season.

[Eli]

Question -- When the Vikes next contend for a title, which of their current players is most likely to be a highly productive contributor on that squad?

Most likely? Given the longevity and relatively high production of older offensive linemen - Matt Kalil. Guys like Harrison Smith and Cordarrelle Patterson may well be retired by then.

[PurpleMustReign]

I did my grad work at UT, so I was pretty happy with yesterday's Red River Shootout result. It may not save Mack Brown's job, but it has to be worth something. Plus I really dislike Stoops, so it's always fun to beat him.

OP: I agree that today marked a shift. Something has to happen. This coaching staff is starting to look pretty bad. What I don't get is how they looked pretty spirited last season.

I would love to see Mack Brown in Minnesota coaching the Gophers, but I know it will never happen. Oh well, a guy can dream.

[PurpleKoolaid]

The Ducks look pretty good, hoping the Vikes have scouts at those games.

[The Breeze]

I guess it's a good week to be Ducks fan born in Utah.

[Mothman]

I guess it's a good week to be Ducks fan born in Utah.

... or an NIU fan. The Huskies remained undefeated and ranked at #23 in the country. Thank goodness at least one of the teams I root for is playing winning football.

[VikingPaul73]

... or an NIU fan. The Huskies remained undefeated and ranked at #23 in the country. Thank goodness at least one of the teams I root for is playing winning football.

I never thought my Illini would be the THIRD best team in the state, but it's been happening quite frequently lately

That is, assuming they could beat ISU!!!!!

[Mothman]

I never thought my Illini would be the THIRD best team in the state, but it's been happening quite frequently lately

That is, assuming they could beat ISU!!!!!

LOL! That program is definitely going through a tough stretch.

[chicagopurple]

This year is getting dangerously close to Steckle-Hood......Heads MUST roll.
We have NO coach, We have NO QB. We have No Secondary, and I really wonder if we have a Front line on either side of the friggin ball. Soon we will have No Stadium (at least for a year)
Things havent been this bleak for a loooong time.
The ONE THING we have is a RB. Unfortunately, we live in an era where the RB has become the least important back in the offense. FIGURES!

[psjordan]

Well Dan, a few things.

First off, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the coaching staff. I would really love to hear a top-notch psychiatric analysis of what makes up those of us that think "the main problem is the PLAYERS, the players must play, Frazier did not drop that pass, etc." versus the camp who finds almost full fault with the coaching staff. Would love to know what types of brains/personalities gravitate to each theory.

Anyways, I am absolutely in the camp that it all starts at the top and works down. And that organizational systemic failures are addressed by addressing leadership. Full-on 100% believe that. If that means current blame goes to the owners for hiring this staff, so be it. Call for change is in order. If that means Spielman is on the hook for hiring this staff, so be it. But for GAMEDAY FOOTBALL OPERATIONS, the onus squarely resides with Frazier on down.

So I would be thrilled to see this staff out the door. At this point I really don't care about the defacto GM or ownership. This group of players with an entirely different staff would, IMO, produce entirely different results all else being equal.

And as a point of note, your thread title of "Rock Bottom" implies this team has a hard surface below, through which it is impossible to get lower. Oh I bet to differ my friend, I beg to differ. This team can (and I believe will) sink even further.

[Mothman]

Well Dan, a few things.

First off, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the coaching staff. I would really love to hear a top-notch psychiatric analysis of what makes up those of us that think "the main problem is the PLAYERS, the players must play, Frazier did not drop that pass, etc." versus the camp who finds almost full fault with the coaching staff. Would love to know what types of brains/personalities gravitate to each theory.

Anyways, I am absolutely in the camp that it all starts at the top and works down. And that organizational systemic failures are addressed by addressing leadership. Full-on 100% believe that. If that means current blame goes to the owners for hiring this staff, so be it. Call for change is in order. If that means Spielman is on the hook for hiring this staff, so be it. But for GAMEDAY FOOTBALL OPERATIONS, the onus squarely resides with Frazier on down.

So I would be thrilled to see this staff out the door. At this point I really don't care about the defacto GM or ownership. This group of players with an entirely different staff would, IMO, produce entirely different results all else being equal.

And as a point of note, your thread title of "Rock Bottom" implies this team has a hard surface below, through which it is impossible to get lower. Oh I bet to differ my friend, I beg to differ. This team can (and I believe will) sink even further.

It can definitely get a lot worse.

Your comments about what types of brains/personalities gravitate to each theory of responsibility are interesting. I honestly don't know. I fall in-between the two. I definitely believe success starts at the top and poor coaching can have a huge impact on games but I also think players have to be held responsible for their performance. Logically, I just don't see how it can any other way. They're the ones playing the games.

There's a reason big college programs tend to have their way with small school programs more often than not. They usually field bigger, more talented teams and that makes a huge difference. Sometimes a smaller program with good coaching and enough talent can pull off an upset and that underlines the importance of great strategy and great coaching but more often that not, talent wins out. It's true in the NFL too. Teams with good QBs and good play at the line of scrimmage tend to beat teams without those attributes most of the time. Of course, coaching has something to do with establishing that good play...

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I have a hard time believing it's ever just coaching or just the players. It's almost always both. Good leadership is essential but so are good players. That's why John Fox can be the same man who coached an 11-5 Panthers team that made it to the Super Bowl, a 2-14 Panthers team that got him fired, an 8-8 Broncos team with Tim Tebow playing QB and a Broncos team that's 18-3 in it's last 21 games and currently undefeated (with you-know-who at QB). Same coach, wildly different results.

[indianation65]

Every year there are a handful of teams that are consistently good, not perfect, but consistently good, and a handful of teams that are consistently terrible. The final records will indicate such. All the rest are in the middle from 6-10 to 10-6, and they take turns sucking and also giving the fans a glimmer of hope with a good win. The Vikes are probably going to be in that middle section, as usual. There are too many games left to know for sure they will be a 3-13 team. Of course, the play calling and defense may have something to say about that.

...wisdom