mosscarter wrote:i'm really starting to believe musgrave wasn't as bad as we all made him out to be. the offense at the end of his last year was the last time we actually looked like we had a game plan. i honestly don't know what they are doing out there now. i told my friend at halftime that they would get shut out. at no point did i feel confident they were going to score after we couldn't get in following the blocked field goal.
I was wondering the same thing this week...it's possible that we all though he was bad when he really just didn't have much talent to work with.
Then again, who knows, we might all be overestimating the current talent on offense.
DK Sweets wrote:I was wondering the same thing this week...it's possible that we all though he was bad when he really just didn't have much talent to work with.
Then again, who knows, we might all be overestimating the current talent on offense.
Ugh. I don't want to think about this.
I mean musgraves offense looked pretty pathetic last week
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
This is also another random thought, but I wonder if part of the reaction (in my opinion, OVERreaction) to Monday's loss was because it hits the fear that basically every Vikings fan carries with them: Who is the face of our franchise? Adrian has hurt his image possibly irreparably, and if he is used/plays like he did Monday, that's a huge hit. We all hyped Teddy a ton during the offseason, and he came out with a clunker. We have holes all up and down the O-line, and our entire front 7 on defense underperformed. If this is a true reflection of our team, we're still years away from serious competition.
We have Harrison Smith, but you safety isn't typically a face of the franchise. I think we're all a little bit terrified of what the offense might be, and that by itself leads to a feeling that nothing is going right.
As a fanbase, we've been through too much in the past 10 years to accept that game lightly.
mosscarter wrote:i'm really starting to believe musgrave wasn't as bad as we all made him out to be. the offense at the end of his last year was the last time we actually looked like we had a game plan. i honestly don't know what they are doing out there now. i told my friend at halftime that they would get shut out. at no point did i feel confident they were going to score after we couldn't get in following the blocked field goal.
I'm beginning to think the same thing about Musgrave. At least he tried to model his scheme to fit each player. I'd like to see what he could do with the present roster.
OTOH, words cannot describe how important it is to have a healthy and talented offensive line. No game plan can survive an OL not performing well.
Pondering Her Percy wrote:I mean musgraves offense looked pretty pathetic last week
True, but again...his talent level is limited.
I'm not willing to say he is better than billed, I'm just willing to entertain the possibility.
losperros wrote:I'm beginning to think the same thing about Musgrave. At least he tried to model his scheme to fit each player. I'd like to see what he could do with the present roster.
OTOH, words cannot describe how important it is to have a healthy and talented offensive line. No game plan can survive an OL not performing well.
DK Sweets wrote:This is also another random thought, but I wonder if part of the reaction (in my opinion, OVERreaction) to Monday's loss was because it hits the fear that basically every Vikings fan carries with them: Who is the face of our franchise? Adrian has hurt his image possibly irreparably, and if he is used/plays like he did Monday, that's a huge hit. We all hyped Teddy a ton during the offseason, and he came out with a clunker. We have holes all up and down the O-line, and our entire front 7 on defense underperformed. If this is a true reflection of our team, we're still years away from serious competition.
We have Harrison Smith, but you safety isn't typically a face of the franchise. I think we're all a little bit terrified of what the offense might be, and that by itself leads to a feeling that nothing is going right.
As a fanbase, we've been through too much in the past 10 years to accept that game lightly.
I agree Dakota. I think there was a big overreaction after this game. Any bad play that happens results in the game thread blowing up. It's game 1, it's a long season, we know we have more talent this year than we've had in a long time, etc. Was it painful to watch, yes. But it's week 1.
I think there is a lot of fear in fans. I just can't see this team folding and having a terrible year though. We have too much talent IMO.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
losperros wrote:
I'm beginning to think the same thing about Musgrave. At least he tried to model his scheme to fit each player. I'd like to see what he could do with the present roster.
OTOH, words cannot describe how important it is to have a healthy and talented offensive line. No game plan can survive an OL not performing well.
Well said.
Musgrave wasn't a bad coordinator. His instincts were a little questionable at times and that was reflected in the occasional odd call or personnel grouping but he was actually good at game-planning, utilizing player strengths while de-emphasizing weaknesses ((I highlighted Craig's comment above because I think Musgrave excelled in this department), etc. He's a pretty good play designer too.
I don't think Monday's loss set the team back years and I don't think it necessarily means the season is over and the Vikes are awful but hopefully, it will serve as a wake up call that the Vikes still have a lot of work to do. They have more questions than answers. I'm surprised they played so poorly in their season debut but I'm not shocked that they had that sort of performance in them because we've seen it too many times in recent years. There were several games last year in which the team was awful, the run defense was awful, the QB play was awful, etc. However, there were also times last year when they looked like a team getting their act together and they played very well. I'd like to think they're headed in an upward direction but it's not clear yet. I'd like to think Zimmer is going to be a great coach (because I really like the guy) but it's not clear yet. I'd like to think Bridgewater will be a great QB but...
... you get the idea.
The Vikes are 3-5 in their last 8 games, folks. They've scored 14 points or less in 3 of their last 4 regular season games. They've got problems that aren't going to be easily overcome but, hopefully, better things are ahead for them and for us fans. I certainly expect to see a better performance against Detroit on Sunday.
I'm really in the camp that this past game was a blessing in disguise (admittedly, that's partially because I desperately want that to be true). The hype surrounding this team both internally and externally was getting out of control. The underdog role has been restored, and typically that's how the Vikings excel.
DK Sweets wrote:I'm really in the camp that this past game was a blessing in disguise (admittedly, that's partially because I desperately want that to be true). The hype surrounding this team both internally and externally was getting out of control. The underdog role has been restored, and typically that's how the Vikings excel.
I would have preferred to see them justify the hype with a blowout win but I know what you mean and I agree, it's a healthy dose of perspective that should seriously motivate the team.
DK Sweets wrote:I'm really in the camp that this past game was a blessing in disguise (admittedly, that's partially because I desperately want that to be true). The hype surrounding this team both internally and externally was getting out of control. The underdog role has been restored, and typically that's how the Vikings excel.
Make room because I'm pitching a tent in the same camp. Any inflated egos have just been deflated. As Jim said, it's a healthy dose of perspective.
I much prefer this present group of Vikings in the role of an underdog. Maybe then they'll play up to (or beyond) their potential instead of beneath it.
fiestavike wrote:There are people on this board who actually prefer Bill Musgrave to Norv Turner?
2011 19th
2012 14th
2013 14th
2014 20th
2015* 32nd
*The only team in the league that didn't score a TD in week 1.
There are a lot of factors involved in this, but the numbers say that the question isn't as far fetched as you think. For the record, I wouldn't choose to go back to Musgrave. I don't find either option attractive at this point.
