Vikings Message Board.Com

Demi wrote: I don't care WHO the engineer is. Why should we put up with it now that it is a distraction?
Comparing a special teams coach with one year left on his deal who's done a solid but unspectacular job to a recently hired head coach? Whose comments apparently wouldn't even be enough to warrant a slap on the wrist, much less a team wide investigation?...
There isn't a possible hypothetical because this wouldn't happen with 99% of coaches, 99% of players, and 99% of teams. But it's happened here. And instead of nipping it in the bud and trying to end it. They decide to keep him on and continue this garbage longer than they needed to!

Oh, good call champ.

Now I see the light.

frosted21 wrote:
Maybe you think that's all due to the players he's had. I believe players and coaches together make up solid units, whether it is offense, defense, or special teams.

Oh, me too. I just think talent makes the biggest difference, especially special talents like Harvin and Patterson. Oh, and I forgot Walsh. Give me Harvin, Patterson, and Walsh, and I can look decent as a ST coach, too. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, he might be a decent coach or whatever, but is he as great as everyone thinks? Doubt it. Those special talents in Harvin and Patterson are making him look better than he is. That's what I think, anyway. I mean, look what freakboy Harvin did in the Super Bowl. He had no business returning that kick as he did. He's just too freakin' good. Those super-talented players like that can make coaches appear better than they are. And, besides, the point some of us are trying to get across is, it was a good time to let him go, regardless of who said what. Just be done with the situation. Start fresh with a new coaching staff. Why let that drama linger with the new crew? But, I guess that is what they wanted. We'll see how it turns out.

Funkytown wrote: Oh, me too. I just think talent makes the biggest difference, especially special talents like Harvin and Patterson. Oh, and I forgot Walsh. Give me Harvin, Patterson, and Walsh, and I can look decent as a ST coach, too. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, he might be a decent coach or whatever, but is he as great as everyone thinks? Doubt it. Those special talents in Harvin and Patterson are making him look better than he is. That's what I think, anyway. I mean, look what freakboy Harvin did in the Super Bowl. He had no business returning that kick as he did. He's just too freakin' good. Those super-talented players like that can make coaches appear better than they are. And, besides, the point some of us are trying to get across is, it was a good time to let him go, regardless of who said what. Just be done with the situation. Start fresh with a new coaching staff. Why let that drama linger with the new crew? But, I guess that is what they wanted. We'll see how it turns out.

I agree that Patterson and Harvin could even make me look like a good ST coach. It's arguable about Walsh, though. Walsh had a pretty unspectacular (73.8% of FGs made) college career, and some people credit Walsh's great rookie year (92.1% FG made) to coaching (which could be a valid conclusion). Even with his 'down year' of 2013, he is still making 86.7% of his FGs. In sort of an ironic observation, Kluwe was purported to be an excellent holder for STs and some wonder if the cutting of Kluwe has affected (albeit slightly) Walsh's performance this year.

Funkytown wrote: Clearly.

Duh, this guy is like Westboro's biggest fan.

frosted21 wrote:Hypothetical -

What if Ponder comes out this summer in the media, butt-hurt because he's saying Zimmer yelled at him during OTA's and said some insensitive comments to him (allegedly).

Oh I got your hypothetical ... now that Priefer is staying, what if the allegations turn out to be true? What if more witnesses come forward and back Kluwe? Now what do you do with Priefer? It's just going to continue to be a distraction, and could be a huge problem down the road if it turns out to be true. Should have just washed our hands of the whole mess.

Reignman wrote:Oh I got your hypothetical ... now that Priefer is staying, what if the allegations turn out to be true? What if more witnesses come forward and back Kluwe? Now what do you do with Priefer? It's just going to continue to be a distraction, and could be a huge problem down the road if it turns out to be true. Should have just washed our hands of the whole mess.

I get where you're coming from, but from my perspective, if the allegations are true, you can him. It's not like we re-upped the guy, he was still under contract for one more year. Waiting until the investigation is concluded, before taking action on a guy that would otherwise remain on the staff seems prudent to me. If we fire him now, and the allegations turn out to be false, then you have Priefer coming after the Vikings, claiming wrongful termination. Which would be a further "distraction".

NextQuestion wrote: Duh, this guy is like Westboro's biggest fan.

No, I'm just not an idiot who accuses someone of saying/doing something when it has yet to be proven that he made that remark.

frosted21 wrote: Oh, good call champ.

Now I see the light.

Consider the source. He gripes and complains about anything Viking related

Demi wrote: That's EXACTLY what a classy organization would do. No clue what I want? I want the nonsense to stop. And that means getting rid of the source of that nonsense. Let an ex-viking sue an ex-viking. Why is this so hard to understand? Neither of these clowns is good enough to warrant keeping around with the extra baggage they have.

So lets just fire anyone that is in some form of power or authority that's supposedly said something (but the Vikes Org. didn't come up with any evidence at all) based on what some loud mouthed said he said? I think they tried that in some countries.

Funkytown wrote: Makes sense!

It doesn't make sense to use the "distraction" nonsense for Kluwe, and, now, ignore that with Priefer. He definitely is a "distraction", and in much more of a negative way than Kluwe was.

I'm actually surprised dude got to stick around. It seemed like the perfect time to get rid of him. No one would have questioned it, but I think keeping him allows for more questioning, especially if this fight from Kluwe continues.

Forget all this, can't we fire him for getting burned by a fake field goal shortly after a fake punt? How stupid can you be? And how about our coverage units? He's not that great. As some said with Kluwe, "He's not good enough to keep around; we shouldn't have to deal with his "distractions" on top of his average performance. Let him go!" Give me Harvin and Patterson, I could appear decent, too. We all could.

The one coach that actually showed improvement, and you want him fired, not because he sucked, but because Kluwe accused him of something NO ONE ELSE HEARD? And waited till his career was over so he could take his revenge. Hopefully Priefer seeks his own suit against the wanna be punter but I bet the Vikes don't let him.

frosted21 wrote:

I totally agree with this. I thought it was kind of interesting that Tom Powers would say that Priefer won round 1 because the Vikings 'rehired' him. Priefer is still under contract so they didn't rehire him, they just haven't done anything yet which is prudent of them to wait until the investigation is complete to make a decision whether or not to keep him around.

Mike Dunsmore from NBC Sports Radio tweeted this on 1/2/14

"Lorenzo Booker told me Kluwe's allegations are, 'definitely believable'. Priefer coached Booker on the 2011 Vikings".

@CanadianMike101

Kluwe's allegations aside, does anyone really think Priefer did anything other than be lucky enough to coach Patterson and Harvin?

This might be a little bit off-topic for this thread, but it seemed to me like our special teams coverage took a rather significant step backward last season. Hester basically beat us by himself on kick returns, we gave up a punt return td to Green Bay that pretty much ended the game, the Harvin return, etc. People keep saying that he was our best coach and what not, but I've always kind of questioned that.

maembe wrote:Kluwe's allegations aside, does anyone really think Priefer did anything other than be lucky enough to coach Patterson and Harvin?

This might be a little bit off-topic for this thread, but it seemed to me like our special teams coverage took a rather significant step backward last season. Hester basically beat us by himself on kick returns, we gave up a punt return td to Green Bay that pretty much ended the game, the Harvin return, etc. People keep saying that he was our best coach and what not, but I've always kind of questioned that.

Check this out:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27071

NextQuestion wrote: Duh, this guy is like Westboro's biggest fan.

Not that I want to nuke you and I do like gay people but your Avatar creeps me out a little