Cordarrelle Patterson

[Mothman]

at least one lousy coach did it.

You're being silly, my friend.

[fiestavike]

You're being silly, my friend.

Is going 15-1 the only evidence? Is doing that once sufficient to say a guy is a good coach? I'm just curious if you have some other reason you think he was a great coach. By that measure we might contend Childress was a great coach. I'm sure we could compile a long list of other lousy coaches who managed to compile an impressive record at some point. Do you have some explanation for why he never coached again in the NFL after an embarrassing stint in Arizona? He certainly had talented rosters, and assistant coaches who went on to much greater success while in Minnesota. Is being surrounded with talent the definition of greatness? I'm not sure why you believe he was great, unless you are citing a 15-1 season, which brings us right back to our continual disagreement, and my statement that the disagreement about Green is emblematic of our overarching disagreement.

Feel free to consider these question rhetorical if you prefer.

[mondry]

at least one lousy coach did it.

Childress didn't hit 15-1 (he was to busy fighting Favre for control so we lost to the bears and panthers LOL) but I'd say that's 2 lousy coaches to get one play or so away from the superbowl

[Jordysghost]

Is going 15-1 the only evidence? Is doing that once sufficient to say a guy is a good coach? I'm just curious if you have some other reason you think he was a great coach. By that measure we might contend Childress was a great coach. I'm sure we could compile a long list of other lousy coaches who managed to compile an impressive record at some point. Do you have some explanation for why he never coached again in the NFL after an embarrassing stint in Arizona? He certainly had talented rosters, and assistant coaches who went on to much greater success while in Minnesota. Is being surrounded with talent the definition of greatness? I'm not sure why you believe he was great, unless you are citing a 15-1 season, which brings us right back to our continual disagreement, and my statement that the disagreement about Green is emblematic of our overarching disagreement.

Feel free to consider these question rhetorical if you prefer.

Throughout his first 6 seasons with the Vikings he never had a losing record and failed to advance to the playoffs only once, he turned your franchise in the right direction for sure, the 15-1 near SB appearance was just the icing on the cake.

I honestly can't understand the sense in detracting from a HC because he assembled (or helped assemble) a talented staff/roster. Is.. that not exactly what you want from your HC?

Dude got Randall Cunningham to have one of the most prolific passing seasons in NFL history, I think sometimes you just got to give credit where it is due.

[mondry]

Throughout his first 6 seasons with the Vikings he never had a losing record and failed to advance to the playoffs only once, he turned your franchise in the right direction for sure, the 15-1 near SB appearance was just the icing on the cake.

I honestly can't understand the sense in detracting from a HC because he assembled (or helped assemble) a talented staff/roster. Is.. that not exactly what you want from your HC?

Dude got Randall Cunningham to have one of the most prolific passing seasons in NFL history, I think sometimes you just got to give credit where it is due.

And how many superbowl appearances / victories? 0. As Jim says, we want a team that can go to the superbowl and win it and not just for one flash in the pan like 1998 but continually be a top contender.

[Jordysghost]

And how many superbowl appearances / victories? 0. As Jim says, we want a team that can go to the superbowl and win it and not just for one flash in the pan like 1998 but continually be a top contender.

Zimmer doesn't have a SB either so that isn't that a bit irrelevant to the subject at hand?

98 wasn't REALLY a flash in the pan, i mean, sure you never went 15-1 again, but no one does that, I don't really see how a team that made the playoffs 5 of the previous 6 years, had no losing seasons during that tenure, and would reach the NFCCG again just two years later could in any way be considered a flash in the pan.

[mondry]

Zimmer doesn't have a SB either so that isn't that a bit irrelevant to the subject at hand?

It's completely relevant! If zimmer doesn't have a superbowl apperance after literally 10 full seasons then that won't speak well about him either, even if he has multiple first round exists and a couple advances.

[Jordysghost]

It's completely relevant! If zimmer doesn't have a superbowl apperance after literally 10 full seasons then that won't speak well about him either, even if he has multiple first round exists and a couple advances.

First off, no it isn't relevant, the point I am making is that until we have a similar sized body of work from Zimmer, it doesn't make sense to declare him a better coach then Green,

Second off, if Zimmer made the playoffs and consistently feilded quality teams I think that would be enough to qualify him as a good coach, even without a SB appearance, was Marty Schottenheimer not a good coach? Or Bud Grant and Marv Levy? (Unless you really see a huge difference between losing a game or two before the SB and losing in the actual SB)

[fiestavike]

There's an idea that all logical arguments form circles. They complete themselves and we can look at that argument and say, yes, that makes sense. So for example, a coach led his team to a great record, a productive offense and within a game of the superbowl, so he's a good coach. It does make sense. It just leaves a lot of the truth outside the circle. I'm trying to draw a circle which is notably larger, and contains several pieces of the truth which are harder to quantify, but no less true. I'm not interested in presenting it again for the time being, just explaining my perspective.

Jordy, if you think Dennis Green was a great coach, or a good coach, that's fine with me. As I said, it is a fact that depending on your measure, he has accomplished more than Mike Zimmer. I'll freely admit that. Personally I don't think that makes him a better coach, and I think there's enough else to the story that I don't even call him a good coach. Your circle is rational and makes sense, I just think its too small a circle to contain the truth. I hope that's a helpful way of expressing what I'm trying to say in a non-confrontational manner. I'm working on improving in that regard.

Also, my argument to this point has really primarily been that Green wasn't a good coach. My comments on Zimmer have been very minimal since the conversation took a turn toward debate with the myth-making comment. I don't really care about ranking the coaches. I think Zimmer is the best coach the Vikings have had since I've been a fan, if you don't, or feel a resume is necessary to support that conclusion, that's fine with me. I'm not looking at it as a ranking, just as a break with incompetence and the introduction of competence. That's my view of it and as a Vikings fan, I'm excited about that.

[mansquatch]

I think I accidentally trolled all of you. Holy cow this fell apart in a hurry. If anything, this is a testament to just how little we know about what is going on with CP84.

[Mothman]

First off, no it isn't relevant, the point I am making is that until we have a similar sized body of work from Zimmer, it doesn't make sense to declare him a better coach then Green

Exactly. The cart keeps getting put before the horse, which is what my comment regarding myth-making was about. It feels like Zimmer' stature as a head coach is continually being elevated beyond his accomplishments, he's being "mythologized" (as in "to create or promote an exaggerated or idealized image of...") into what people believe or expect he will be as a head coach and one of the more frustrating aspects of that is the way past coaches get dumped on in the process of weaving this narrative of his supposed superiority. The apparent lack of historical perspective is also frustrating.

I say all that knowing full well that, in time, Zimmer could prove to be a great head coach and live up to that ideal. That's exactly how I'd like things to work out.

Meanwhile, I think there's value in maintaining perspective. Using Green as an example, it's easy to look back on that era in hindsight and see a coach who, while successful, ultimately didn't have whatever it takes to achieve even more. The Green era began much like the Zimmer era but with even more immediate success in terms of wins and losses. Green was the "new sheriff in town" who came in, changed attitudes, changed the "culture" of the team and was going to bring the team it's first Super Bowl win. There was an immediate W/L improvement over the previous season. The team had a top 10 defense (which would top the league the following year), they reached the playoffs, etc. It should sound familiar.

It didn't work out as planned in the long run.

Since then, we've seen other coaches take the helm and we've seen improvement under each and every one of them before, ultimately, they were replaced. That should provide a healthy dose perspective.

[mansquatch]

This is basically a debate over how one qualifies an opinion.
My view of Zimmer as the best in 30 years is based on how I perceive he runs his organization and how he presents himself. That is probably over simplifying it a bit, as I’m coming from a background that includes 15 years of experience in business management and financial consulting. So my opinion, while in the format of the internet where anyone can say anything, are based on my own professional experience. You can tell me I’m full of crap and that is fine, no one said you can’t have your own opinions. However, I’m just calling it as I see it. If I had to choose a leader, I would greatly prefer someone with the traits of a Zimmer over someone like any of the previous four coaches. Believe, I’ve worked with similar personality types to all of them. The Zimmer type wins for me and it isn’t a close contest.

The criticism on here is basically “well he hasn’t won a superbowl yet” or “he hasn’t won in multiple seasons yet”. These are both true statements. Great. I don’t know about you guys, but I want to know what I have before the big moment comes. In order for both of the above statements to be true we would already have to be 3-5 years into Zimmer’s tenure. How do you assess it in year 2, where we are now? Do we just roll the dice and accept that he is what he is? These types of assessments are, IMO, lazy. They are easy. Anyone can say somebody is great when they have filled a trophy case. My 7 year old can figure that out. How do you figure it out before he is in season 5?

I get that my view of Zimmer is an opinion, but I wouldn’t say it is creating any kind of mythology. Zimmer has to create his own mythology, which he is doing. I’m just observing behaviors and opining on them . IMO, the way he does things makes him the best of the past 5.

[Mothman]

This is basically a debate over how one qualifies an opinion.
My view of Zimmer as the best in 30 years is based on how I perceive he runs his organization and how he presents himself. That is probably over simplifying it a bit, as I’m coming from a background that includes 15 years of experience in business management and financial consulting. So my opinion, while in the format of the internet where anyone can say anything, are based on my own professional experience. You can tell me I’m full of crap and that is fine, no one said you can’t have your own opinions. However, I’m just calling it as I see it. If I had to choose a leader, I would greatly prefer someone with the traits of a Zimmer over someone like any of the previous four coaches. Believe, I’ve worked with similar personality types to all of them. The Zimmer type wins for me and it isn’t a close contest.

The criticism on here is basically “well he hasn’t won a superbowl yet” or “he hasn’t won in multiple seasons yet”. These are both true statements. Great. I don’t know about you guys, but I want to know what I have before the big moment comes. In order for both of the above statements to be true we would already have to be 3-5 years into Zimmer’s tenure. How do you assess it in year 2, where we are now? Do we just roll the dice and accept that he is what he is? These types of assessments are, IMO, lazy. They are easy. Anyone can say somebody is great when they have filled a trophy case. My 7 year old can figure that out. How do you figure it out before he is in season 5?

I get that my view of Zimmer is an opinion, but I wouldn’t say it is creating any kind of mythology. Zimmer has to create his own mythology, which he is doing.

That's exactly my point. The process needs to unfold so, as you asked above, how DO we assess Zimmer in year 2 (in a larger, historical context)? If it's lazy to say we need to wait for a story to unfold isn't it also lazy to assume we already know the ending because we've read or seen stories before? What's easier than that?

It's a debate about how one qualifies an opinion but it's also about how one forms it in the first place. Taken a step further, once the comparisons to previous coaches start flying, it seems like evidence, achievement, etc. should play a greater role. At least I view it that way. We're al entitled to our opinions but it's nice to include some objective comparison in there as well.

As I tried to make clear in my response to Dead_Poet and in my post this morning, my frustration was not with your post in particular but with a much larger trend. I do think some of your comments have reflected that trend of promoting an exaggerated, idealized version of the coach based on belief, not accomplishment but naturally, you're entitled to those views. I've worked with a variety of personality types as leaders over the years myself and i've been one too so I understand how and why those personal experiences influence opinions. I grasp where you're coming from.

I wasn't, and I'm not, out to offend anybody.

[mansquatch]

Jim, it is fine to compare vs. other coaches (Who else would you use as a benchmark?) but it still needs to be apples to apples to have any level of coherence. My basis for my praise of Zimmer is not on his record so much as it is his management style, ability to motivate, and impressive attention to detail. On those points it is fair to compare him to his predecessors and that is why I believe him superior to the others.

Conversely, it is not fair to compare on record. Zimmer has two seasons and everyone else had at least 4 or more.

The beauty of the NFL is that that ultimately the record of the team will tell us how well the organization did. Of course, I would argue that the record is owned by more than the just the headcoach. No one doubts that Bill Parcell's was a great coach, but he didn't win the big game in Dallas or New England. Was it because he got worse as a coach or was it because the roster wasn't up the task? Now in some of those cases he was also GM, so he would get blame there as well, but you can see the point. W/L are not a perfect measure either.

[Mothman]

Jim, it is fine to compare vs. other coaches (Who else would you use as a benchmark?) but it still needs to be apples to apples to have any level of coherence. My basis for my praise of Zimmer is not on his record so much as it is his management style, ability to motivate, and impressive attention to detail. On those points it is fair to compare him to his predecessors and that is why I believe him superior to the others.

Conversely, it is not fair to compare on record. Zimmer has two seasons and everyone else had at least 4 or more.

Ironically, I don't see Zimmer as a coach who clearly stands above his predecessors in terms of management style, ability to motivate, or attention to detail. I like his approach to those things but it doesn't strike me as inherently better. Of course, we're in highly subjective territory there.

It's true that Zimmer has fewer seasons under his belt than those predecessors but I think that makes the most logical apples-to-apples comparison to compare Zimmer's first few seasons to the early years of his predecessors. There are plenty of parallels and lessons to be learned there and personally, when I make those comparisons, Zimmer doesn't come across as an inherently superior coach steering the Vikes to inevitable greatness. That doesn't mean he won't ultimately prove to be the best of the bunch but I don't think that's clear at this stage.

The beauty of the NFL is that that ultimately the record of the team will tell us how well the organization did. Of course, I would argue that the record is owned by more than the just the headcoach.

I agree with you on that. The circumstances definitely matter and to some extent, that makes a true apples-to-apples comparison impossible.

No one doubts that Bill Parcell's was a great coach, but he didn't win the big game in Dallas or New England. Was it because he got worse as a coach or was it because the roster wasn't up the task? Now in some of those cases he was also GM, so he would get blame there as well, but you can see the point. W/L are not a perfect measure either.

Good points. There really is no perfect measure.