Vikings Message Board.Com

Mark Craig has written a good piece about the Kubiak hire for the Star tribune:

Gary Kubiak makes perfect sense for Vikings coach Mike Zimmer

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:17 pm Mark Craig has written a good piece about the Kubiak hire for the Star tribune:

Gary Kubiak makes perfect sense for Vikings coach Mike Zimmer

Do you subscribe to the star trib? I can never see any of the articles despite having a subscription.

PurpleMustReign wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:56 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:17 pm Mark Craig has written a good piece about the Kubiak hire for the Star tribune:

Gary Kubiak makes perfect sense for Vikings coach Mike Zimmer

Do you subscribe to the star trib? I can never see any of the articles despite having a subscription.

I think it has something to do with the pop up ads. I can usually read an article, but cant go back to it, or read another article without a big ad coming up, and you cant make it go away.

PurpleMustReign wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:56 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:17 pm Mark Craig has written a good piece about the Kubiak hire for the Star tribune:

Gary Kubiak makes perfect sense for Vikings coach Mike Zimmer

Do you subscribe to the star trib? I can never see any of the articles despite having a subscription.

It basically says Kubiak runs a much more balanced old school offense compared to JDF. JDF was a poor hire in terms of philosophy and aspirations. The author concludes it should be a good fit.

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:04 pm

fiestavike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:36 am I'm not opposed to delegating one side of the ball to an experienced coach. All the better if that coach is at a point in his career when he isn't going to be considered for another head coaching job. Jim Bates, Wade Phillips, Dick LeBeau,...those kind of guys can just have the defense left in their hands and things might work out pretty. Mike Zimmer was probably in that boat as a DC to some extent.

It does seem that this sort of arrangement is more common for defense than offense, but I think if the Vikings can get the kind of stability out of Kubiak/Zimmer that they wanted out of Turner/Zimmer, that is a winning formula. Might the Wilfs have the patience to ride that out and emulate a franchise like Pittsburgh? If they have any serious hope of winning a superbowl in the next decade, its almost certainly their best bet.

Frankly, I think their best bet to win a Super Bowl in the next decade is to replace Mike Zimmer and Spielman with a more effective coach/GM combination and proceed from there. I'm not suggesting that's easy but I think another decade of those two is likely to yield more of the same rather than a Super Bowl victory.

To be fair, any and every option is more than likely not going to result in a superbowl over the next ten years. For most teams, any given year, or any given decade, winning it all is a longshot. Perhaps replacing Spielman and Zimmer with better options is more likely to result in a chamipionship, but first, that would mean finding a hiring better options, which is a pretty low probability to begin with. Then it means sticking with those guys long enough to establish continuity and build a championship roster that suits their philosophy. Long story short, even if they found upgrades to Spielman and Zimmer the sacrifice of relative continuity and coherence between personnel and philosophy, as well as the likelihood that impatience causes ownership to blow it up before that arrangement produces peak results means, it ain't gonna happen in all likelihood. If they make a change, I hope they'll be willing to commit for the long haul, but if they make that change, the slim likelihood of a superbowl is diminished in my opinion.

PurpleMustReign wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 1:56 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:17 pm Mark Craig has written a good piece about the Kubiak hire for the Star tribune:

Gary Kubiak makes perfect sense for Vikings coach Mike Zimmer

Do you subscribe to the star trib? I can never see any of the articles despite having a subscription.

No, I don't subscribe. They put a monthly limit on the number of free articles you can read but you should be able to read a few every month.

fiestavike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:36 pmTo be fair, any and every option is more than likely not going to result in a superbowl over the next ten years. For most teams, any given year, or any given decade, winning it all is a longshot. Perhaps replacing Spielman and Zimmer with better options is more likely to result in a chamipionship, but first, that would mean finding a hiring better options, which is a pretty low probability to begin with.

I think of that as the "devil you know" argument (ie: it's better to deal with a known quantity than to take a risk with an unknown person). I think it lowers the probability of a championship rather than raising it, particularly when considering Spielman's overall track record with the Vikings.

Winning it all isn't such a longshot. After all, there are only 32 teams. Half of them have at least played in a Super Bowl in just the last 16 years. Over a third of them have won it all in that time period. Most of them have been to the Super Bowl in the decades since the Vikings last managed it.

Then it means sticking with those guys long enough to establish continuity and build a championship roster that suits their philosophy.

Except that result is not inevitable. It still requires the right people in key positions. 5 years IS enough time to establish continuity and build a championship roster. Spielman and Zimmer have done neither.

Long story short, even if they found upgrades to Spielman and Zimmer the sacrifice of relative continuity and coherence between personnel and philosophy, as well as the likelihood that impatience causes ownership to blow it up before that arrangement produces peak results means, it ain't gonna happen in all likelihood.

NFL history has shown again and again that if a team is going to win a Super Bowl under a particular head coach, they usually at least reach one pretty quickly, within 5 years or less. We've only seen relative continuity and coherence between personnel and philosophy on defense anyway. On offense, we've seen the opposite. The team is now on their 4th OC in 5 years and the addition of Kubiak should add an asterisk to that and make it 4.5 or 5. They're on their 4th or 5th starting QB too and they've changed offensive systems several times. There's been very little continuity on offense.

If they make a change, I hope they'll be willing to commit for the long haul, but if they make that change, the slim likelihood of a superbowl is diminished in my opinion.

I guess we'll just have to differ on this. Personally, I think sticking with Zimmer and Spielman in 2019 already shows a disappointing degree of complacency. It suggests to me the Vikings are too satisfied with the moderate success the team has had under Zimmer and Spielman. Much of the fan base seems to feel likewise.

Mothman wrote: ↑ NFL history has shown again and again that if a team is going to win a Super Bowl under a particular head coach, they usually at least reach one pretty quickly, within 5 years or less. .

I know what you're saying, but is it a bit of a self fulfilling profasy? Most coaches don't last that long if they don't win a championship.

Thaumaturgist wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:45 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑ NFL history has shown again and again that if a team is going to win a Super Bowl under a particular head coach, they usually at least reach one pretty quickly, within 5 years or less. .

I know what you're saying, but is it a bit of a self fulfilling profasy? Most coaches don't last that long if they don't win a championship.

I don't think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think it's just that when the right chemistry comes together, that high level of achievement seems to follow pretty quickly.

It often happens in less than 5 years and quite a few coaches who have lasted that long or longer have never won a Super Bowl.

There are no hard and fast rules, of course.

Mothman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:30 am

Texas Vike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:03 pmIt's a little funky.

The other issue is Gary's health. He's had some serious problems in the past few years.

It was why he left coaching, right? I was a little surprised to see he was returning. Hopefully, that means those health issues have been resolved (or at least have significantly improved).

I think he had a problem in Houston, and I know here in Denver he had to miss a couple of games. Can't remember what was determined about that incident, but it was serious enough that he was hospitalized for a bit. I think they feel these things are brought on by stress and that comes from the pressure of the the head coaching role, in a position with less pressure he seems to think he'll be ok.

Mothman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:55 am
If you want to see a thread devoted to the Kubiak hiring, please feel free to start one. I won't lock it and I agree that it's significant enough to deserve it's own discussion.

You want me to loosen up. Other people complain about too many threads being started. It's impossible to make everybody happy. Thank goodness I get paid 6 figures to be a moderator on this board!

Thanks, I suppose there are people trying to push you in different directions. I think more threads are better than a few catchall threads, so you can home in on subjects that interest you (in case we are voting on things).

Mothman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:17 pm

I think of that as the "devil you know" argument (ie: it's better to deal with a known quantity than to take a risk with an unknown person). I think it lowers the probability of a championship rather than raising it, particularly when considering Spielman's overall track record with the Vikings.

except that in all likelihood, they'll just hire some re-tread that we 'already know' too. If they don't, it'll mean taking a chance on a unknown which has worked out with even less frequency than hiring a re-tread.

Winning it all isn't such a longshot. After all, there are only 32 teams. Half of them have at least played in a Super Bowl in just the last 16 years. Over a third of them have won it all in that time period. Most of them have been to the Super Bowl in the decades since the Vikings last managed it.

That doesn't mean its not a longshot for any particular team, in any particular year. In a vacuum, teams have about a 1/32 chance. Given that there are teams with premiere QBs and teams with excellent continuity, the odds for most teams is far less than that. The fact that there is distribution among many of the 32 teams over the last 16 years is neither compelling or surprising. A roulette wheel would have similar distribution.

Except that result is not inevitable.

Yes, I agree.

It still requires the right people in key positions. 5 years IS enough time to establish continuity and build a championship roster. Spielman and Zimmer have done neither.

5 years is enough time for it to theoretically happen. Still, for most teams, it does not happen within any 5 given year window. At that point, its customary to fire everybody and spin the roulette wheel again. I question the wisdom of this prevailing approach.

NFL history has shown again and again that if a team is going to win a Super Bowl under a particular head coach, they usually at least reach one pretty quickly, within 5 years or less.

I don't find this remotely compelling for the reason above.

We've only seen relative continuity and coherence between personnel and philosophy on defense anyway. On offense, we've seen the opposite. The team is now on their 4th OC in 5 years and the addition of Kubiak should add an asterisk to that and make it 4.5 or 5. They're on their 4th or 5th starting QB too and they've changed offensive systems several times. There's been very little continuity on offense.

Yes, I agree! Its been a problem of inconsistency. Personally, I believe the goal behind hiring Turner was to find that continuity with an OC who wouldn't be scooped up as a HC if he had success. It was a good idea that didn't work out. The Kubiak hiring is likely for the same reason. If the Vikings have success next year, Stefanski will likely be scooped up.

I guess we'll just have to differ on this. Personally, I think sticking with Zimmer and Spielman in 2019 already shows a disappointing degree of complacency. It suggests to me the Vikings are too satisfied with the moderate success the team has had under Zimmer and Spielman. Much of the fan base seems to feel likewise.

To fire them after another year without a championship would be the conventional move at this point. Not following conventional wisdom seems to be one of the few things that actually improves a team's chances to win it all.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:28 am

TSonn wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:12 pm I'm a fan of Kubiak but his role here seems suspect. I feel like Stefanski, while being the official OC, will be more of a George Edwards figure for our team in terms of him having an official title but no one really believing he has much power. If that's the case, I guess it worked for Edwards/Zimmer so hopefully it works out the same way.

I dont trust it either. Never liked father/son duo's in the NFL coaching. I dont see what Klint's done to come on as QB coach. Talk about having your hands full, getting a chicken sh** QB as your first job. Maybe we get a line and Cousins doesnt have to fear for his life, but I dont trust Speilman. At all. In fact, I think this whole bit of ex Bronco coaches coming over is Rick's idea, and not Zimmers. Makes me trust the Wilfs even less. And what about Stefanki? Why even hire him if they were going to bring in all these Bronco coaches? Speilman's fall guy? Zimmers? I bet Zimmer doesnt even talk to anyone on the offensive side of the ball next season.

Make that 3 people who don't trust it. Maybe it works, but you have to say that they are creating a situation with plenty of potential for conflict. Kubiak has been use to having the final say in things. Maybe he really will just act in an advisory role, but you wonder what happens if his suggestions aren't being used. It was assumed in Denver he was going to be OC when they hired Fangio (as in maybe Elway was pretty much going to tell Fangio that Kubiak was his OC), then things broke down when Kubiak wanted to retain his people (Dennison, his son) and also, I think, philosophical differences with Fangio. Vikings sure pounced in a hurry when he was freed up from Denver.

For players, it has to be crazy to get new coordinators, coaches, be traded etc. I don't know how much of an overhaul there is with the playbook when you get new coordinators, but to learn a new system like that has to be taxing on the players involved. For examples of playbooks, check this out:

http://www.footballxos.com/free-footbal ... playbooks/

I'd hate to have to learn a new playbook.

fiestavike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:44 amTo fire them after another year without a championship would be the conventional move at this point. Not following conventional wisdom seems to be one of the few things that actually improves a team's chances to win it all.

I understand why you question the wisdom of the "5 year window". I certainly don't think teams should be rigid about that but I do think 4-5 years is a good window in which to learn about a coach's strengths and weaknesses and assess his performance. The conventional wisdom in the league is probably just a consequence of an appropriate evaluation period.

I also understand the appeal of emulating Pittsburgh by showing patience but one of the reasons the Steelers have a history of longevity and stability with their coaches is their last 3 coaches all reached or won the Super Bowl within their first 6 years, clearly earning the patience they received. Noll won it all in 6 years, Cowher reached the big game in 4 and Tomlin won it in 2. They also posted winning seasons in long streaks. They were able to sustain success in a way we haven't seen the Vikings do in a long time. Inevitably, they slipped back toward .500 at times but overall, they made it pretty easy to be patient.

Just to reinforce the point: once Noll put together a winner, his teams posted 9 straight winning seasons. Cowher had 6 straight winning seasons right out of the gate, most of them in double digits. Tomlin hasn't had a losing season in 12 years. I think the patience followed the success rather than the success just being a consequence of the patience. It speaks to the strength of having the right people in place.

The Vikings have only had back-to-back winning seasons once in Spielman's 12 years with the team and that was under Brad Childress. I believe that strongly suggests the Vikings have the wrong GM in place if they want to win a Super Bowl.