PDA

View Full Version : Brad Childress, ex QB coach



CCthebest
11-07-2006, 10:59 AM
I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:04 AM
"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.

Marrdro
11-07-2006, 11:08 AM
Ziggy problem gave him a 3 or 4 year timeframe to win.
For us fans we just got a taste this year.


I have repeatedly made the point that Brad hasn't been given a raise/extension because he won't be here next year.
Will it be Tavaris or another free agent.
Not sure but this offense isn't made up of the players Brad wants on the field.

Watch, and boy is that painfull (3 points against San Fran),
what happens as this team learns/grows under his system.

Gift
11-07-2006, 11:09 AM
"Del" wrote:


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.
....
Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.
But the redzone play calling is atrocious.
3 & goal from the 8 yard line?
Lets run six yard button hooks.
I think some of it is recievers not knowing where they need to be but a coach should fix that by week 9.

CCthebest
11-07-2006, 11:10 AM
But Childress had twice the money, both to himself, and to spend on players, then Tice ever dreamed of. We spent alot on linemen, and the only one worth it is Hutch. Mckenny isnt. Wasted too much on the line for it not to pan out for us. I sure hope it doesnt take 3 or 4 years for them to gel.

Man, I really need to proffread my posts. im god's worst typist

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:17 AM
"CCthebest" wrote:


But Childress had twqice the money, both to himself, and to spend on players, then Tice ever dreamed of. We spent alot of linemen, and the only one worth it is Hutch. Mckenny isnt. Wasted too much on the line for it not to pan out for us. I sure hope it doesnt take 3 or 4 years for them to gel.


What are you talking about money for. Tice had one of the most potent offenses in the entire NFL handed to him. Vetran players who know the game.


Here are some stats for those of you who continue to call Childress' play calling predictable:

Passing

1st

94ATT
2nd

74ATT
3rd

84ATT
4th


6ATT

So predictable would be passing on 3rd down. He passed more on 1st then 3rd that is the opposite of predictable.

Rushing

1st

91ATT
2nd
69ATT
3rd

12ATT
4th


1ATT

First of all find me a team that doesnt run a majority of its rushes on first down. Second of all our team has a 5 yard per carry average on 1st down, so yes it is predictable and they still cannot stop us.


For those of you counting that is 91/94 rush/pass ratio on first down how more unpredictable do you guys want it?

GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.

cajunvike
11-07-2006, 11:21 AM
Good post, Del...and great research!

But why are you talking about the weather in the last sentence there? :D

Prophet
11-07-2006, 11:23 AM
"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


I am of the opinion that BJ was kept in the lineup as an interim QB to train up Tarvaris.
Their offseason actions support this theory.
They tried to shore up the lines, got some LB help, got an FB, decent RB, etc. and put the QB position on the back burner.

The whole Foley argument that Del Rio brought up regarding Tarvaris is interesting.
The main comments I've seen regarding Tarvaris from Childress is that he has to be able to 'man-up' and learn to play through injuries (when relevant).
I seriously doubt this theory though, Foley (Fred Flintsone) is a questionable character, but the move for Tarvaris in the second was supposedly approved the the 'triangle of authority'.
There is no reason for me to believe that Tarvaris isn't still being groomed for the future.


Where the master plan fell short, apparently, is when the offense has refused to produce for an array of reasons (BJ, receivers, line, play-calling, new schemes...and interaction of these factors).
Now, if the BJ experiment of grooming the future QB falls through the cracks AND the coaches decide that TJ isn't ready to start then the Vikings will, without a doubt, be looking for a new QB to either buy some more time waiting for Tarvaris or to potentially take the reigns.
No matter how you slice it Tarvaris (plug any other QBs name in here) will have to prove to the coaching staff that they are the man for the job.

BJ has had some BJ-like games this year and some pathetic games.
Childress himself said that the turnovers from BJ last week were from two blindsides and a tipped ball (it doesn't matter if he said it, it is what happened).
The fact that BJ is playing inconsistently doesn't take away the fact that he does have a lot of NFL experience and game management experience to relay on to Tarvaris.
Whether it's a W or an L if Tarvaris isn't learning something in the process it is on his own shoulders for not taking the initiative to be a life-long learner.

Personally, I would be really surprised if Bevell isn't shit-canned this year and a real OC isn't brought in that has earned his way up through the ranks.
I know you have been saying that Childress has ego problems since the first day he was signed.
I don't buy it.
He wants to win and he has a plan and he is implementing that plan.
A loss to the tune of 3-9 is nothing.
They can easily correct that.
If Bethel Johnson would have caught that duck and if Travis Taylor wouldn't have committed that penalty we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So is football, every week there's something and the blame game goes on...similar to corporate america.
Find a scapegoat.

The field general on the offense is the QB.
Rightfully or not, they get much of the blame.
Reality is the HC should take the brunt of the blame, and he did if you look at his press conference, and he need to look at the OC, line coaches, receiving coaches, QB coach...etc. and rectify the problem.
If Bevell had a spine (I'm guessing he doesn't, obviously), he would call a spade a spade and call Childress on his supposed lack of creativity or adjustments on the O.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bevell is sitting next to Childress (probably on his lap) when they are analyzing what happened and they are brainstorming solutions.
A good leader utilizes the resources around him and is ultimately responsible.
Childress took the responsibility for the problems and put them on his own shoulders (very unDenny-like) but the question that remains to be answered from a fan's perspective is whether he is effectively utilizing the rest of the coaching staff.
It is early in his tenure, the answer will surface eventually.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:23 AM
"cajunvike" wrote:


Good post, Del...and great research!

But why are you talking about the weather in the last sentence there? :D


Of course I was! You know me cajun Potatoe Patato Potayto Poetatoe

Braddock
11-07-2006, 11:27 AM
Yeah great posts Del, and Gift, your sig is insane. Come on.... :)

Gift
11-07-2006, 11:37 AM
"Del" wrote:


GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.
If I though they were not designed plays I wouldn't have made my statement.
Take that INT in the redzone vs NE, There was only one reciever brad ever planned on throwing to & that was memo.
The route ran 3-5 yards infront of the endzone & had it not been picked memo would have never made it in anyway.

Gift
11-07-2006, 11:42 AM
"Braddock" wrote:


Yeah great posts Del, and Gift, your sig is insane. Come on.... :)
I dont even think my sig is working right now
:'(

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:44 AM
"Gift" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.
If I though they were not designed plays I wouldn't have made my statement.
Take that INT in the redzone vs NE, There was only one reciever brad ever planned on throwing to & that was memo.
The route ran 3-5 yards infront of the endzone & had it not been picked memo would have never made it in anyway.


So you are saying in your gut you have a feeling that Brad Childress said, no matter what you pass the ball to Memo?

I don't know about that. It would be interesting to watch the other WR's. In fact on that very play Bethel Johnson was open on the sideline and he sure looked like he was miffed that he didnt get the pass. I think it was a Brad Johnson decision. We will never know though.

Purple Floyd
11-07-2006, 11:45 AM
The one thing that was stressed when we hired Childress was that the vikings head coaching job was the cream of the crop because they had an already talented roster compared to other job openings and they also had tons of cap room and an owner who was not afraid to spend money to get a championship.

Childress was hailed on this site and the media if I am not mistaken, as a "QB developing machine".
That point was made both in reference to his work at Wisconsin and Philly with McNabb and also after the draft when we drafted Jackson.

Last year we were 9-7 and we supposedly upgraded the roster and the coaching staff in the off season so it would stand to figure that we should be in a position this year to have a better record than last year. If we end up with the same record as last year after upgrading the talent and staff then I would say we would not have gotten a good return on our investment.

The one thing that was stated that we needed was a new standard of accountability in terms of both on the field performance and off field behavior and we would be a contender. I think it is safe to say that even though we have certainly seen less tolerance of shoddy behavior ( Even though the stairwell sex and the drunken police chase still happened) the coach has certainly dealt with it well, but it has not translated to chemistry or success on the field.

I am not sure how much time should be considered acceptable in order for the team and the staff to be on the same page but to me that time is closer to training camp than it is mid-season. One thing to consider is that even if they get some sort of chemistry by game 12 or so, it is too late to be of any use this season and we all know that with free agency this team and staff will look different next year so anything we accomplished with chemistry this year will be a moot point next year.

If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly.

As stated earlier, if the team was 4-12 last year and needed a complete rebuild I would understand being .500 at mid- season but with a team that supposedly only needed a few tweaks to get to the playoffs we should be better than 4-4 and certainly should be good enough to score at least one touchdown against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

jargomcfargo
11-07-2006, 11:47 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


I am of the opinion that BJ was kept in the lineup as an interim QB to train up Tarvaris.
Their offseason actions support this theory.
They tried to shore up the lines, got some LB help, got an FB, decent RB, etc. and put the QB position on the back burner.

The whole Foley argument that Del Rio brought up regarding Tarvaris is interesting.
The main comments I've seen regarding Tarvaris from Childress is that he has to be able to 'man-up' and learn to play through injuries (when relevant).
I seriously doubt this theory though, Foley (Fred Flintsone) is a questionable character, but the move for Tarvaris in the second was supposedly approved the the 'triangle of authority'.
There is no reason for me to believe that Tarvaris isn't still being groomed for the future.


Where the master plan fell short, apparently, is when the offense has refused to produce for an array of reasons (BJ, receivers, line, play-calling, new schemes...and interaction of these factors).
Now, if the BJ experiment of grooming the future QB falls through the cracks AND the coaches decide that TJ isn't ready to start then the Vikings will, without a doubt, be looking for a new QB to either buy some more time waiting for Tarvaris or to potentially take the reigns.
No matter how you slice it Tarvaris (plug any other QBs name in here) will have to prove to the coaching staff that they are the man for the job.

BJ has had some BJ-like games this year and some pathetic games.
Childress himself said that the turnovers from BJ last week were from two blindsides and a tipped ball (it doesn't matter if he said it, it is what happened).
The fact that BJ is playing inconsistently doesn't take away the fact that he does have a lot of NFL experience and game management experience to relay on to Tarvaris.
Whether it's a W or an L if Tarvaris isn't learning something in the process it is on his own shoulders for not taking the initiative to be a life-long learner.

Personally, I would be really surprised if Bevell isn't pooh-canned this year and a real OC isn't brought in that has earned his way up through the ranks.
I know you have been saying that Childress has ego problems since the first day he was signed.
I don't buy it.
He wants to win and he has a plan and he is implementing that plan.
A loss to the tune of 3-9 is nothing.
They can easily correct that.
If Bethel Johnson would have caught that duck and if Travis Taylor wouldn't have committed that penalty we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So is football, every week there's something and the blame game goes on...similar to corporate america.
Find a scapegoat.

The field general on the offense is the QB.
Rightfully or not, they get much of the blame.
Reality is the HC should take the brunt of the blame, and he did if you look at his press conference, and he need to look at the OC, line coaches, receiving coaches, QB coach...etc. and rectify the problem.
If Bevell had a spine (I'm guessing he doesn't, obviously), he would call a spade a spade and call Childress on his supposed lack of creativity or adjustments on the O.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bevell is sitting next to Childress (probably on his lap) when they are analyzing what happened and they are brainstorming solutions.
A good leader utilizes the resources around him and is ultimately responsible.
Childress took the responsibility for the problems and put them on his own shoulders (very unDenny-like) but the question that remains to be answered from a fan's perspective is whether he is effectively utilizing the rest of the coaching staff.

It is early in his tenure, the answer will surface eventually.


Great post!

With perhaps the exception of the New England game, a play here or there that goes different and this team would have been 7-1.

Then this site would have been in a purple butt slapping frenzy.

It appeared this team had a chance to be very good based on pre-season and early season opponents.

It appears we may be in a rebuilding year now.But we don't know this yet!

Week in and week out games are decided by a few simple mistakes or plays.

Any team can win as they say "on any given Sunday".

If the O line improves it's pass protection a little, Johnson and the play calling will not be a problem, providing the crucial penalties and dropped balls diminish.

Gift
11-07-2006, 11:51 AM
"Del" wrote:


"Gift" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.
If I though they were not designed plays I wouldn't have made my statement.
Take that INT in the redzone vs NE, There was only one reciever brad ever planned on throwing to & that was memo.
The route ran 3-5 yards infront of the endzone & had it not been picked memo would have never made it in anyway.


So you are saying in your gut you have a feeling that Brad Childress said, no matter what you pass the ball to Memo?

I don't know about that. It would be interesting to watch the other WR's. In fact on that very play Bethel Johnson was open on the sideline and he sure looked like he was miffed that he didnt get the pass. I think it was a Brad Johnson decision. We will never know though.
I don't think it was "pass to memo at all costs" but I think that he was primary.
I also think BJ has done a terrible job this year of executing BC's game plan.
I'm not blaming BC for the entire flop that is the Vikings offense, but he does hold a high level of accountability as the HC & the OC.
It is his job to inspire & motivate people to play for him & thus far I think MT has done a far better job on the D side of the ball.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:54 AM
If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly

I think training camp and real games are different situations. You take the guys who are the best in training camp. It doesn't mean the success will translate onto the field.

Blocking in training camp is like whacking it, sure it gets the job done but it doesn't mean when you have a woman with you that your not gonna be poking an armpit.

You take who does the best and it is a learning experience every game as you actually get to be battle tested against another team that is going 100% I highly doubt anyone who is starting did bad in training camp. Walking through a block scheme with helmet and shoulders trying not to get hurt is different then trying to figure out who to block when Brian Urlacher is lined up over you and linemen are shifting.

The season is school time. Learning time. That is why teams that are great have been together for many years.

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 11:57 AM
"Gift" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"Gift" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.
If I though they were not designed plays I wouldn't have made my statement.
Take that INT in the redzone vs NE, There was only one reciever brad ever planned on throwing to & that was memo.
The route ran 3-5 yards infront of the endzone & had it not been picked memo would have never made it in anyway.


So you are saying in your gut you have a feeling that Brad Childress said, no matter what you pass the ball to Memo?

I don't know about that. It would be interesting to watch the other WR's. In fact on that very play Bethel Johnson was open on the sideline and he sure looked like he was miffed that he didnt get the pass. I think it was a Brad Johnson decision. We will never know though.
I don't think it was "pass to memo at all costs" but I think that he was primary.
I also think BJ has done a terrible job this year of executing BC's game plan.
I'm not blaming BC for the entire flop that is the Vikings offense, but he does hold a high level of accountability as the HC & the OC.
It is his job to inspire & motivate people to play for him & thus far I think MT has done a far better job on the D side of the ball.


I think Childress would probably accept the critisizm as he did with his press conference. There is plenty of blame to go around.

~Edit~
Also Gift I enjoy discussing football with everyone and I like the insights you bring to the table. If anything I said in our discussion came off as assholeish that was not my intent. We can't prove each other wrong on this, and at the end of the day I am sure we both could care less what is what and why it is if the Vikings would just start winning some damn games! ;D

Ltrey33
11-07-2006, 11:58 AM
"Del" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


But Childress had twqice the money, both to himself, and to spend on players, then Tice ever dreamed of. We spent alot of linemen, and the only one worth it is Hutch. Mckenny isnt. Wasted too much on the line for it not to pan out for us. I sure hope it doesnt take 3 or 4 years for them to gel.


What are you talking about money for. Tice had one of the most potent offenses in the entire NFL handed to him. Vetran players who know the game.


Here are some stats for those of you who continue to call Childress' play calling predictable:

Passing

1st

94ATT
2nd
74ATT
3rd

84ATT
4th


6ATT

So predictable would be passing on 3rd down. He passed more on 1st then 3rd that is the opposite of predictable.

Rushing

1st
91ATT
2nd
69ATT
3rd
12ATT
4th

1ATT

First of all find me a team that doesnt run a majority of its rushes on first down. Second of all our team has a 5 yard per carry average on 1st down, so yes it is predictable and they still cannot stop us.


For those of you counting that is 91/94 rush/pass ratio on first down how more unpredictable do you guys want it?

GIFT: Are all of our WR's HB's running 6 yard routes? No they are not. I am sure Childress doesnt draw up a play and say ok everyone go 6 yards and curl. There are various routes at various depths and the QB, the WR and the LINE have to make the play. How in the name of GOD is it Brad Childress' fault if Brad Johnson throws to a guy 6 yards deep? EVERY pass play has a check down. Weather Brad sucks and made a bad read or he didnt have time to read because McKinnie was getting beat outside is not Brad Childress' fault.


Thanks for the dose of sanity Del. I love that your posts always point out that people see what they WANT to see, not what is actually happening.

CCthebest
11-07-2006, 12:30 PM
I cant believe im saying this, but great posts Prophet and Del hah. I do hope TJack isnt watching Bj too closely though. All those check downs suck. I still would have liked to see an ex Qb coach having better QB options.

Marrdro
11-07-2006, 01:46 PM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Acumen" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


I am of the opinion that BJ was kept in the lineup as an interim QB to train up Tarvaris.
Their offseason actions support this theory.
They tried to shore up the lines, got some LB help, got an FB, decent RB, etc. and put the QB position on the back burner.

The whole Foley argument that Del Rio brought up regarding Tarvaris is interesting.
The main comments I've seen regarding Tarvaris from Childress is that he has to be able to 'man-up' and learn to play through injuries (when relevant).
I seriously doubt this theory though, Foley (Fred Flintsone) is a questionable character, but the move for Tarvaris in the second was supposedly approved the the 'triangle of authority'.
There is no reason for me to believe that Tarvaris isn't still being groomed for the future.


Where the master plan fell short, apparently, is when the offense has refused to produce for an array of reasons (BJ, receivers, line, play-calling, new schemes...and interaction of these factors).
Now, if the BJ experiment of grooming the future QB falls through the cracks AND the coaches decide that TJ isn't ready to start then the Vikings will, without a doubt, be looking for a new QB to either buy some more time waiting for Tarvaris or to potentially take the reigns.
No matter how you slice it Tarvaris (plug any other QBs name in here) will have to prove to the coaching staff that they are the man for the job.

BJ has had some BJ-like games this year and some pathetic games.
Childress himself said that the turnovers from BJ last week were from two blindsides and a tipped ball (it doesn't matter if he said it, it is what happened).
The fact that BJ is playing inconsistently doesn't take away the fact that he does have a lot of NFL experience and game management experience to relay on to Tarvaris.
Whether it's a W or an L if Tarvaris isn't learning something in the process it is on his own shoulders for not taking the initiative to be a life-long learner.

Personally, I would be really surprised if Bevell isn't pooh-canned this year and a real OC isn't brought in that has earned his way up through the ranks.
I know you have been saying that Childress has ego problems since the first day he was signed.
I don't buy it.
He wants to win and he has a plan and he is implementing that plan.
A loss to the tune of 3-9 is nothing.
They can easily correct that.
If Bethel Johnson would have caught that duck and if Travis Taylor wouldn't have committed that penalty we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So is football, every week there's something and the blame game goes on...similar to corporate america.
Find a scapegoat.

The field general on the offense is the QB.
Rightfully or not, they get much of the blame.
Reality is the HC should take the brunt of the blame, and he did if you look at his press conference, and he need to look at the OC, line coaches, receiving coaches, QB coach...etc. and rectify the problem.
If Bevell had a spine (I'm guessing he doesn't, obviously), he would call a spade a spade and call Childress on his supposed lack of creativity or adjustments on the O.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bevell is sitting next to Childress (probably on his lap) when they are analyzing what happened and they are brainstorming solutions.
A good leader utilizes the resources around him and is ultimately responsible.
Childress took the responsibility for the problems and put them on his own shoulders (very unDenny-like) but the question that remains to be answered from a fan's perspective is whether he is effectively utilizing the rest of the coaching staff.

It is early in his tenure, the answer will surface eventually.


Great post!

With perhaps the exception of the New England game, a play here or there that goes different and this team would have been 7-1.

Then this site would have been in a purple butt slapping frenzy.

It appeared this team had a chance to be very good based on pre-season and early season opponents.

It appears we may be in a rebuilding year now.But we don't know this yet!

Week in and week out games are decided by a few simple mistakes or plays.

Any team can win as they say "on any given Sunday".

If the O line improves it's pass protection a little, Johnson and the play calling will not be a problem, providing the crucial penalties and dropped balls diminish.



And there lies the problem.
This offense isn't potent enough to overcome even one minor mistake.

whackthepack
11-07-2006, 01:50 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


The one thing that was stressed when we hired Childress was that the vikings head coaching job was the cream of the crop because they had an already talented roster compared to other job openings and they also had tons of cap room and an owner who was not afraid to spend money to get a championship.

Childress was hailed on this site and the media if I am not mistaken, as a "QB developing machine".
That point was made both in reference to his work at Wisconsin and Philly with McNabb and also after the draft when we drafted Jackson.

Last year we were 9-7 and we supposedly upgraded the roster and the coaching staff in the off season so it would stand to figure that we should be in a position this year to have a better record than last year. If we end up with the same record as last year after upgrading the talent and staff then I would say we would not have gotten a good return on our investment.

The one thing that was stated that we needed was a new standard of accountability in terms of both on the field performance and off field behavior and we would be a contender. I think it is safe to say that even though we have certainly seen less tolerance of shoddy behavior ( Even though the stairwell sex and the drunken police chase still happened) the coach has certainly dealt with it well, but it has not translated to chemistry or success on the field.

I am not sure how much time should be considered acceptable in order for the team and the staff to be on the same page but to me that time is closer to training camp than it is mid-season. One thing to consider is that even if they get some sort of chemistry by game 12 or so, it is too late to be of any use this season and we all know that with free agency this team and staff will look different next year so anything we accomplished with chemistry this year will be a moot point next year.

If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly.

As stated earlier, if the team was 4-12 last year and needed a complete rebuild I would understand being .500 at mid- season but with a team that supposedly only needed a few tweaks to get to the playoffs we should be better than 4-4 and certainly should be good enough to score at least one touchdown against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.



When Childress made that statement we still had Koren Robinson who should have been our # 1 receiver, and Daunte was still the top QB when he returned from his injury.
But Daunte forced his way out, and Robinson drinking and running from the police changed 2 key positions and left our offense short at receiver and QB!

If Daunte's injury would have been handled the right way he would be about ready to come in and start, and with doing it the right way he would probably not be the basket case he is right now!

Having Koren with Williamson, Taylor and Marcus as the top 4 WR's maybe things would have gone differently for this offense, but that is all speculation because the 2 of them are not here.

vikes09
11-07-2006, 02:16 PM
Childress was hailed on this site and the media if I am not mistaken, as a "QB developing machine".
That point was made both in reference to his work at Wisconsin and Philly with McNabb and also after the draft when we drafted Jackson.

not so much a "qb developing maching, but a guy who knows the qbs pretty gol' darnit well.

Last year we were 9-7 and we supposedly upgraded the roster and the coaching staff in the off season so it would stand to figure that we should be in a position this year to have a better record than last year. If we end up with the same record as last year after upgrading the talent and staff then I would say we would not have gotten a good return on our investment.

we definately improved our coaching staff, and along with new coaches come new styles, gameplans, and (most importantly) their own schemes. this takes time to learn and with a whole new staff. i think we're feeling the effects of it come week 9 of the season, but it will get better with time.

concerning the upgraded players, some were definate upgrades (hutch) and some have been injured (greenway).
i think this statement was made when we had absolutely NO news, the offseason was nearing an end, and everyone was getting excited for the new season. new players are always praised to no extent, but again it was the only thing that happened in months and everyone was extremely excited.

The one thing that was stated that we needed was a new standard of accountability in terms of both on the field performance and off field behavior and we would be a contender. I think it is safe to say that even though we have certainly seen less tolerance of shoddy behavior ( Even though the stairwell sex and the drunken police chase still happened) the coach has certainly dealt with it well, but it has not translated to chemistry or success on the field.

it wasnt supposed to equate to sucess on the field, but a better image of the viking organization. the stairwell incident was handled very well (from a new player, dwight smith) as was the police chase (koren no longer a viking). i would have to say thats helped start the rebuilding of the image the vikes want.

I am not sure how much time should be considered acceptable in order for the team and the staff to be on the same page but to me that time is closer to training camp than it is mid-season. One thing to consider is that even if they get some sort of chemistry by game 12 or so, it is too late to be of any use this season and we all know that with free agency this team and staff will look different next year so anything we accomplished with chemistry this year will be a moot point next year.

im saying 9 weeks... ;D

If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly.

i would consider changing receivers by training camp "learning on the fly". and the coaches probably tried to install their scheme right away, regardless. blocking if anything cant be learned on the fly, and bringing another guy in when training camp is going would probably hinder them and the offensive line's "chemistry".

As stated earlier, if the team was 4-12 last year and needed a complete rebuild I would understand being .500 at mid- season but with a team that supposedly only needed a few tweaks to get to the playoffs we should be better than 4-4 and certainly should be good enough to score at least one touchdown against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

i agree that our offense is bad, but passing offense is the LAST thing to develop in a new scheme. last year we were headed to the superbowl, and the year hadnt started.
this year most people took a wiser approach and had reasonable (as far as being a baised vikings fan goes 8)) idea of how the season was going to go.

we have the packers in week 9, so lets cruise past them and go to 5-4!!!

olson_10
11-07-2006, 02:27 PM
my problem with childress is with how badly hes just trying to impress us all with words..he said all those things at the beginning of the season about utilizing the TEs, and sticking to the run..on field discipline..all things we havent seen..and then this week he tops it all by saying that the problems "start with me", but turns right around after that, in the same paragraph, and says hes not going to change himself or his approach

ultravikingfan
11-07-2006, 04:01 PM
"olson_10" wrote:


my problem with childress is with how badly hes just trying to impress us all with words..he said all those things at the beginning of the season about utilizing the TEs, and sticking to the run..on field discipline..all things we havent seen..and then this week he tops it all by saying that the problems "start with me", but turns right around after that, in the same paragraph, and says hes not going to change himself or his approach


He should not change his "approach".
I doubt any pro or good college coach ever changes there approach.
Sure, they change some minor things but the "approach" is the label as a coach.

If you do not like the fact that he is trying to impress you with words, maybe he is confusing you.

2beersTommy
11-07-2006, 04:04 PM
"olson_10" wrote:


my problem with childress is with how badly hes just trying to impress us all with words..he said all those things at the beginning of the season about utilizing the TEs, and sticking to the run..on field discipline..all things we havent seen..and then this week he tops it all by saying that the problems "start with me", but turns right around after that, in the same paragraph, and says hes not going to change himself or his approach


WOW, didnt you ever hear the expression "baffle them with bull$hit" ? Thats one of my stonger qualities
;D

singersp
11-07-2006, 09:13 PM
"Del" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.

DEVIKINGFAN!
11-07-2006, 09:22 PM
I dont think anybody is going to be happy.... Until we...........BRING BACK BUD!!!!!!!
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

singersp
11-07-2006, 09:25 PM
"DEVIKINGFAN!" wrote:


I dont think anybody is going to be happy.... Until we...........BRING BACK BUD!!!!!!!
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o


Bud is still here. He works for the Vikings front office as a consultant.

BadlandsVikings
11-07-2006, 09:26 PM
"DEVIKINGFAN!" wrote:


I dont think anybody is going to be happy.... Until we...........BRING BACK BUD!!!!!!!
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o


What Would Bud Do?

Del Rio
11-07-2006, 09:33 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.

singersp
11-07-2006, 10:25 PM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.



O'Leary's 2003 pass defense ranked 26th compared to Tomlin's 18th

O'Leary's 2003 run defense ranked 17th compared to Tomlin's at #1

O'Leary's 2003 total defense ranked 23rd compared to Tomlin's at #6

23rd is pretty low on the totem pole compared to 6th.

While we put up a lot of points on offense in 2003 & were stingy against the run, we still gave up far to many scores through the air & lost ball games.

IMO, Tomlin is far better at coaching defense than O'leary was during O'Leary's short tenure here.

Comparing those two are apples & oranges.

That is why I brought up Tice never had Tomlin.

The same could be said in the obverse. If Childress had Tice's 2003 offense, we'd be sitting real pretty about now.

Del Rio
11-08-2006, 06:11 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.



O'Leary's 2003 pass defense ranked 26th compared to Tomlin's 18th

O'Leary's 2003 run defense ranked 17th compared to Tomlin's at #1

O'Leary's 2003 total defense ranked 23rd compared to Tomlin's at #6

23rd is pretty low on the totem pole compared to 6th.

While we put up a lot of points on offense in 2003 & were stingy against the run, we still gave up far to many scores through the air & lost ball games.

IMO, Tomlin is far better at coaching defense than O'leary was during O'Leary's short tenure here.

Comparing those two are apples & oranges.

That is why I brought up Tice never had Tomlin.

The same could be said in the obverse. If Childress had Tice's 2003 offense, we'd be sitting real pretty about now.


The differences are still amazing. Having the #1 offense in the NFL in with the #1 Defense in takeaways. Not even a shot in hell in a comparison. Sorry.

singersp
11-08-2006, 06:51 AM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:




I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.



O'Leary's 2003 pass defense ranked 26th compared to Tomlin's 18th

O'Leary's 2003 run defense ranked 17th compared to Tomlin's at #1

O'Leary's 2003 total defense ranked 23rd compared to Tomlin's at #6

23rd is pretty low on the totem pole compared to 6th.

While we put up a lot of points on offense in 2003 & were stingy against the run, we still gave up far to many scores through the air & lost ball games.

IMO, Tomlin is far better at coaching defense than O'leary was during O'Leary's short tenure here.

Comparing those two are apples & oranges.

That is why I brought up Tice never had Tomlin.

The same could be said in the obverse. If Childress had Tice's 2003 offense, we'd be sitting real pretty about now.


The differences are still amazing. Having the #1 offense in the NFL in with the #1 Defense in takeaways. Not even a shot in hell in a comparison. Sorry.


I'm not trying to compare them. I wondering how Tice would have done with todays defense & how Childress would do withe 2003 offense.

Take aways are great, but the determining factors are the give-away take-away margin & do you capitalize on those turnovers. If you give them the ball right back without scoring, you haven't taken advantage of that turnover.

I believe the margin in 2003 was 11.

Del Rio
11-08-2006, 07:12 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.



O'Leary's 2003 pass defense ranked 26th compared to Tomlin's 18th

O'Leary's 2003 run defense ranked 17th compared to Tomlin's at #1

O'Leary's 2003 total defense ranked 23rd compared to Tomlin's at #6

23rd is pretty low on the totem pole compared to 6th.

While we put up a lot of points on offense in 2003 & were stingy against the run, we still gave up far to many scores through the air & lost ball games.

IMO, Tomlin is far better at coaching defense than O'leary was during O'Leary's short tenure here.

Comparing those two are apples & oranges.

That is why I brought up Tice never had Tomlin.

The same could be said in the obverse. If Childress had Tice's 2003 offense, we'd be sitting real pretty about now.


The differences are still amazing. Having the #1 offense in the NFL in with the #1 Defense in takeaways. Not even a shot in hell in a comparison. Sorry.


I'm not trying to compare them. I wondering how Tice would have done with todays defense & how Childress would do withe 2003 offense.

Take aways are great, but the determining factors are the give-away take-away margin & do you capitalize on those turnovers. If you give them the ball right back without scoring, you haven't taken advantage of that turnover.

I believe the margin in 2003 was 11.


You don't have the #1 offense in the NFL and not score points with turnovers. It would be interesting to see if it was reversed. It all goes back to the initial comparison that was not brought up by you, to which I said which is worse:

Doing less with more

or

Doing more with less

IMO Tice had more, and we had less. I have a feeling that this defense is going to rank about where the 2003 defense did by the end of the season especially in pass defense. So I guess half-way through the season is not a good enough point to roll out the golden fleece carpet for Tomlin. We've had run defenses as high as 10th under Tice. It is the pass that gets us and it still does. Going to be interesting to see if it gets exploited even more.

singersp
11-08-2006, 07:22 AM
"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:








I dont understand how an ex QB coach should have put so much faith in a million dollar QB, to get us to the superbowl. Maybe a HC without all the QB experience BC has, but not one who coached McNabb.

Did he really think BJ could get it done? Or was BJ just filler till he could hand pick a rookie and coach him to stardom?

And how can you only give 1 million and change to your QB starter and expect to have a good backup? I mean come on, Mike McMahon, JT, Brooks??? Youd think an ex QB coach could spot at least a little talent.

Also, what experience does BC have in play calling? Cause, quite frankly, he sucks. Terrible 3rd down conversions, and even worse red zone calls. Yeah yeah dropped passes and penalties hurt but come on. Is his ego so big hes just going to keep calling plays, and not Get our OC to? Or would our OC be that much worse. BC needs free time to actually coach. Is he really that much better then Tice? What were Tice's numbers his rookie year as HC? Not that I like Tice, but I thought BC could at least match his numbers.


Lots of head coaches call their own plays it has nothing to do with ego.

I honestly think he wanted to use Daunte Culpepper and at the same time he has Wilf wanting a strict regime that cleans up the team and takes care of buisiness. So when friction arose with Culpepper I think he had to take a stand and he did, and then he had to settle for BJ. He plays him now IMO because he is the best we have.

Do not dismiss the redzone screwups so easily. Yeah yeah comon doesn't quite cover the impact a dropped pass, a penalty, and a turnover can have.

We have won 4 games. Do you think Brad Childress has a script of good plays and a script of bad ones lol. How can he call a game like Seattle and then turn around and be at fault in San Fran when he is using the exact same plays?

If you want to crunch Tice Vs. Childress numbers take into account the roster. What is more impressive to you doing more with less or doing absolutley NOTHING with more (TICE.) Apples and Oranges.


Tice never had Tomlin. Tomlin probably has made the biggest impact on this team, IMO.


Tice had Oleary and the Vikes were taking the ball away hand over fist. 2003 he had the #1 offense in the entire NFL. And the #17 run D, #1 D in takeaways, and 23rd over all and he didnt even get a playoffbirth. Sorry you can't even begin to compare the Team Tice had and the Team Childress has. Like I said apples and oranges.



O'Leary's 2003 pass defense ranked 26th compared to Tomlin's 18th

O'Leary's 2003 run defense ranked 17th compared to Tomlin's at #1

O'Leary's 2003 total defense ranked 23rd compared to Tomlin's at #6

23rd is pretty low on the totem pole compared to 6th.

While we put up a lot of points on offense in 2003 & were stingy against the run, we still gave up far to many scores through the air & lost ball games.

IMO, Tomlin is far better at coaching defense than O'leary was during O'Leary's short tenure here.

Comparing those two are apples & oranges.

That is why I brought up Tice never had Tomlin.

The same could be said in the obverse. If Childress had Tice's 2003 offense, we'd be sitting real pretty about now.


The differences are still amazing. Having the #1 offense in the NFL in with the #1 Defense in takeaways. Not even a shot in hell in a comparison. Sorry.


I'm not trying to compare them. I wondering how Tice would have done with todays defense & how Childress would do withe 2003 offense.

Take aways are great, but the determining factors are the give-away take-away margin & do you capitalize on those turnovers. If you give them the ball right back without scoring, you haven't taken advantage of that turnover.

I believe the margin in 2003 was 11.


You don't have the #1 offense in the NFL and not score points with turnovers. It would be interesting to see if it was reversed. It all goes back to the initial comparison that was not brought up by you, to which I said which is worse:

Doing less with more

or

Doing more with less

IMO Tice had more, and we had less. I have a feeling that this defense is going to rank about where the 2003 defense did by the end of the season especially in pass defense. So I guess half-way through the season is not a good enough point to roll out the golden fleece carpet for Tomlin. We've had run defenses as high as 10th under Tice. It is the pass that gets us and it still does. Going to be interesting to see if it gets exploited even more.


True

It seems like we have been getting burned by the short pass & YAC for several years now.

That is our weakness & teams will continue to exploit it until we can put a stop to it.

Purple Floyd
11-08-2006, 08:20 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


The one thing that was stressed when we hired Childress was that the vikings head coaching job was the cream of the crop because they had an already talented roster compared to other job openings and they also had tons of cap room and an owner who was not afraid to spend money to get a championship.

Childress was hailed on this site and the media if I am not mistaken, as a "QB developing machine".
That point was made both in reference to his work at Wisconsin and Philly with McNabb and also after the draft when we drafted Jackson.

Last year we were 9-7 and we supposedly upgraded the roster and the coaching staff in the off season so it would stand to figure that we should be in a position this year to have a better record than last year. If we end up with the same record as last year after upgrading the talent and staff then I would say we would not have gotten a good return on our investment.

The one thing that was stated that we needed was a new standard of accountability in terms of both on the field performance and off field behavior and we would be a contender. I think it is safe to say that even though we have certainly seen less tolerance of shoddy behavior ( Even though the stairwell sex and the drunken police chase still happened) the coach has certainly dealt with it well, but it has not translated to chemistry or success on the field.

I am not sure how much time should be considered acceptable in order for the team and the staff to be on the same page but to me that time is closer to training camp than it is mid-season. One thing to consider is that even if they get some sort of chemistry by game 12 or so, it is too late to be of any use this season and we all know that with free agency this team and staff will look different next year so anything we accomplished with chemistry this year will be a moot point next year.

If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly.

As stated earlier, if the team was 4-12 last year and needed a complete rebuild I would understand being .500 at mid- season but with a team that supposedly only needed a few tweaks to get to the playoffs we should be better than 4-4 and certainly should be good enough to score at least one touchdown against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.



When Childress made that statement we still had Koren Robinson who should have been our # 1 receiver, and Daunte was still the top QB when he returned from his injury.
But Daunte forced his way out, and Robinson drinking and running from the police changed 2 key positions and left our offense short at receiver and QB!

If Daunte's injury would have been handled the right way he would be about ready to come in and start, and with doing it the right way he would probably not be the basket case he is right now!

Having Koren with Williamson, Taylor and Marcus as the top 4 WR's maybe things would have gone differently for this offense, but that is all speculation because the 2 of them are not here.


They may have gone different, but every team has injuries. The ones that can adjust to those injuriessucceed and the ones that don't fail. We got shellac'd by a patriots team that revamped their offensive line and have a receiving corps of nobodies. They are still able to put up points and execute an offensive scheme even with all of the changes,including Deion Branch being traded at the last minute.Green Bay also lost their top receiver and never replaced him but farve and their new coaching staff with a retooled offensive line still put up 420 yards against buffalo and have been scoring points regularly. And Culpepper being gone is a moot point because he sucks anyway. If QB was a problem, then they could have went after Drew Brees with their money,he has New Orleans at 6-2 with a new coaching staff, new o-line etc. Just like we have, but they had far less talent to start with. And they are not even getting the reggie bush production yet.


In this day and age you need to get your ducks in a row before you start preseason and by the time you kick off the first game you neeed to hit the ground running or you are dead in the water. Now if that wasn't a boatload of cliche' lol ;D

jmmcgorman
11-08-2006, 08:23 AM
Time, Time, and more Time

It takes time
I agree and have posted many times about how it is our receivers.
Without getting into all that again, i think that as for the rest of the team that acumen is right.

Childress had Pep and K-Rob, I watched every game last year, and K-Rob is no Marvin Harrison, but he sure ran good routes and had a nack for getting open.
I remember the long bomb touchdown against detroit.
K-Rob has had a 1200 yard season before, whether it would have been a big one or not, he would have made a difference in this team.

Marcus runs good routes, i don't remember which game it was but it was a stop and go route up the seam and johnson threw the ball before marcus was even looking and they connected and on the post it sounds corny but on tv and watching what all the other guys on offense were doing it looks amazing.


I don't think it is completely childress, yes he should rely on an oc to help out, but its not just the play calling.

I agree that BJ is in there to bring up someone, whether that be TJack or whoever.

Purple Floyd
11-08-2006, 08:34 AM
"vikes09" wrote:


Childress was hailed on this site and the media if I am not mistaken, as a "QB developing machine".
That point was made both in reference to his work at Wisconsin and Philly with McNabb and also after the draft when we drafted Jackson.

not so much a "qb developing maching, but a guy who knows the qbs pretty gol' darnit well.
So far he has aquired JT Osuksalot, Ed McMahon, Brooks Bollinger and his QB hasn't score in almost 3 games. The jury is still out as far as I am concerned


Last year we were 9-7 and we supposedly upgraded the roster and the coaching staff in the off season so it would stand to figure that we should be in a position this year to have a better record than last year. If we end up with the same record as last year after upgrading the talent and staff then I would say we would not have gotten a good return on our investment.

we definately improved our coaching staff, and along with new coaches come new styles, gameplans, and (most importantly) their own schemes. this takes time to learn and with a whole new staff. i think we're feeling the effects of it come week 9 of the season, but it will get better with time.

The defense is considerably better except the secondary where there were 2 major injuries. They deserve credit, but I am still not convinced the offensive staff can coach themselves out of a box. I hope they prove me wrong against GB

concerning the upgraded players, some were definate upgrades (hutch) and some have been injured (greenway).
i think this statement was made when we had absolutely NO news, the offseason was nearing an end, and everyone was getting excited for the new season. new players are always praised to no extent, but again it was the only thing that happened in months and everyone was extremely excited.

The one thing that was stated that we needed was a new standard of accountability in terms of both on the field performance and off field behavior and we would be a contender. I think it is safe to say that even though we have certainly seen less tolerance of shoddy behavior ( Even though the stairwell sex and the drunken police chase still happened) the coach has certainly dealt with it well, but it has not translated to chemistry or success on the field.

it wasnt supposed to equate to sucess on the field, but a better image of the viking organization. the stairwell incident was handled very well (from a new player, dwight smith) as was the police chase (koren no longer a viking). i would have to say thats helped start the rebuilding of the image the vikes want.

The off the field problems were blamed for the lack of success so changing the atmosphere was certainly supposed to make the team better
I am not sure how much time should be considered acceptable in order for the team and the staff to be on the same page but to me that time is closer to training camp than it is mid-season. One thing to consider is that even if they get some sort of chemistry by game 12 or so, it is too late to be of any use this season and we all know that with free agency this team and staff will look different next year so anything we accomplished with chemistry this year will be a moot point next year.

im saying 9 weeks... ;D

If the QB couldn't get the ball to the receivers in training camp, if the receivers couldn't catch the ball in training camp they should have been replaced with people who could and if the OL couldn't execute a blocking scheme in training camp they should have addressed it then because the season begins with game 1, not game 10,11 or 12. and in this league you cannot be successful learning on the fly.

i would consider changing receivers by training camp "learning on the fly". and the coaches probably tried to install their scheme right away, regardless. blocking if anything cant be learned on the fly, and bringing another guy in when training camp is going would probably hinder them and the offensive line's "chemistry".

Question: If our coaches cannot bring in new guys and plug them into the scheme without disruption, then how come other teams do it on a regular basis?

As stated earlier, if the team was 4-12 last year and needed a complete rebuild I would understand being .500 at mid- season but with a team that supposedly only needed a few tweaks to get to the playoffs we should be better than 4-4 and certainly should be good enough to score at least one touchdown against one of the worst defenses in the NFL.

i agree that our offense is bad, but passing offense is the LAST thing to develop in a new scheme. last year we were headed to the superbowl, and the year hadnt started.
this year most people took a wiser approach and had reasonable (as far as being a baised vikings fan goes 8)) idea of how the season was going to go.

we have the packers in week 9, so lets cruise past them and go to 5-4!!!


I am all for that ;D