PDA

View Full Version : Childress Haters Rejoice!



Prophet
11-22-2006, 11:03 AM
NFL HC approval ratings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/sportsnation/ratings)

Childress ranks dead last according to the fans, considered by some to be at the top of the intellectual cess pool.

NodakPaul
11-22-2006, 11:09 AM
Wow. In four weeks his approval rating dropped from 93% to 13%!
Fickle. ;)

cyviking
11-22-2006, 11:14 AM
too early for such poor a rating...
im not a Childress backer and not a hater I think he deserves a fair chance is all. it makes me sad to see how quick viking fans are to get out the pitchforks and torches.

marantzo
11-22-2006, 11:15 AM
I'd suggest that it's not fickle, it's realistic. I think that Childress does have the makings of a first rate coach, but I think his personality may be interfering with his progress. He doesn't seem flexible enough to improvise accordingly when faced with certain situations.

COJOMAY
11-22-2006, 11:21 AM
"marantzo" wrote:


I'd suggest that it's not fickle, it's realistic. I think that Childress does have the makings of a first rate coach, but I think his personality may be interfering with his progress. He doesn't seem flexible enough to improvise accordingly when faced with certain situations.


I'm not so sure he has the "horses" to improvise with. JMHO

kramer9guy
11-22-2006, 11:32 AM
IMO, new coaches should get at least three years to install their system, get the right personnel for the system and then they should be judged as to whether it has worked or not. It is waaaay to early to judge Childress. The jury is still out on this one (and will be for quite a while).

Prophet
11-22-2006, 11:36 AM
"kramer9guy" wrote:


IMO, new coaches should get at least three years to install their system, get the right personnel for the system and then they should be judged as to whether it has worked or not. It is waaaay to early to judge Childress. The jury is still out on this one (and will be for quite a while).


Quit clouding the discussion with a voice of reason.

Del Rio
11-22-2006, 11:40 AM
Someone has to take the blame. The fans tried to pin it on BJ, but Childress would not budge, so now he is the fall guy.

CCthebest
11-22-2006, 12:00 PM
Or maybe when your team has gotten progressionaly worse, and makes stupid turnovers, penalties and dropped passes, the HC isnt doing his job right? Maybe take someone who has more INTs then TDs, or gets called for penalties all the time, or drops passes, out of the game for a week or more?

Prophet
11-22-2006, 12:05 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


Or maybe when your team has gotten progressionaly worse, and makes stupid turnovers, penalties and dropped passes, the HC isnt doing his job right? Maybe take someone who has more INTs then TDs, or gets called for penalties all the time, or drops passes, out of the game for a week or more?


You win.
You're in the 87% while I'm in the 13%.
I'm proud to say that I don't make judgement on someone's 29+ year career based on a couple of games.
If that's your ticket, more power to you.

Del Rio
11-22-2006, 12:05 PM
"CCthebest" wrote:


Or maybe when your team has gotten progressionaly worse, and makes stupid turnovers, penalties and dropped passes, the HC isnt doing his job right? Maybe take someone who has more INTs then TDs, or gets called for penalties all the time, or drops passes, out of the game for a week or more?


Maybe, unless of course since you are the coach and you know more about the players on your team then the fans do, you have a hard time sitting someone because through practice and execution you know that the person backing up the guy making mistakes is not good enough to increase your chance to win, when your team has lost by one score all year long.

Caine
11-22-2006, 12:20 PM
AS the HC, it is your job to adjust as required to improve your team...Childress has been very slow to do that.
A few examples of that:

O-Line:
Anyone else notice how much time Brad Johnson had once Hicks and Johnson were removed from the line?
Suddenly, instead of a turnstile, we had a hedge.
Sure, it was a small hedge, and the leaves were all falling off, and the dog crapped in it, but it was more than we had before.

And it only took 10 games to make the change.

Receivers:
Troy Williamson, who has dropped more balls than he's caught (OK, not really, he's dropped 11 and caught 27....but you get the idea), is STILL listed as our #1 receiver.
Does Childress honestly think that any team in the NFL is stupid enough to think that Troy gets a serious look at this point?


Time until change - 10 games and counting.

Defense:
We played that zone 2 defense for 9 1/2 games.
Soft coverage, big cushion, the works.
The intent was to stop big plays....which we did, unless they put in Whitaker.
Odd how once we closed the cushions and started popping people at the line the passing game locked up.

And it only took 9 1/2 games to figure that out.

Penalties:
Ongoing problem.
While much reduced against Detroit, Marcus Johnson still can't figure out the snap count.
Let's see how long he stays on the pine.

Jury still out on change.

Play Calling:
Childress' scheme is the same tired out short dump off scheme that has been the hallmark of the WCO since the WCO was created.
Everyone knows what to expect.
Teams that run it well have several aces up their sleeves.


An Elite QB
An Elite WR
An Elite RB

Usually, they have at least 2 of the 3.
We have none of the above.
Chester is the closest thing we have, but I wouldn't go crowning him "Elite" just yet.
He's what I call "servicable".

So, Childress is trying to run an outmoded Offense without the talent to pull it off.
Still awaiting change.

Now, as was mentioned earlier, new HC's get 3 years.
Childress willl get his 3, but he'd better start showing drastic improvement next season.
I doubt that Viking fans are going to tolerate too many sub-.500 seasons after bringing him in after a 9-7 season.
By rights, he should have been able to hit at least 9-7...right now, that's a long shot.

Caine

kramer9guy
11-22-2006, 12:29 PM
Just to compare some coaches and their first few years with their respective teams...

Bill Belichick/Patriots

2000: 5-11
2001: 11-5 (won Super Bowl)
2002: 9-7
2003: 14-2

Bud Grant/Vikings

1967: 3-8-3
1968: 8-6
1969: 12-2 (lost Super Bowl)
1970: 12-2

Mike Holmgren/Packers

1992: 9-7
1993: 9-7
1994: 9-7
1995: 11-5

Andy Reid/Eagles

1999: 5-11
2000: 11-5
2001: 11-5
2002: 12-4

D!ck Vermeil/Rams

1997: 5-11
1998: 4-12
1999: 13-3 (won Super Bowl)

D!ck Vermeil/Chiefs

2001: 6-10
2002: 8-8
2003: 13-3

Bill Walsh/49ers

1979: 2-14
1980: 6-10
1981: 13-3 (won Super Bowl)




http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/teams.nsf

Del Rio
11-22-2006, 12:38 PM
"Caine" wrote:


AS the HC, it is your job to adjust as required to improve your team...Childress has been very slow to do that.
A few examples of that:

O-Line:
Anyone else notice how much time Brad Johnson had once Hicks and Johnson were removed from the line?
Suddenly, instead of a turnstile, we had a hedge.
Sure, it was a small hedge, and the leaves were all falling off, and the dog crapped in it, but it was more than we had before.

And it only took 10 games to make the change.

Receivers:
Troy Williamson, who has dropped more balls than he's caught (OK, not really, he's dropped 11 and caught 27....but you get the idea), is STILL listed as our #1 receiver.
Does Childress honestly think that any team in the NFL is stupid enough to think that Troy gets a serious look at this point?


Time until change - 10 games and counting.

Defense:
We played that zone 2 defense for 9 1/2 games.
Soft coverage, big cushion, the works.
The intent was to stop big plays....which we did, unless they put in Whitaker.
Odd how once we closed the cushions and started popping people at the line the passing game locked up.

And it only took 9 1/2 games to figure that out.

Penalties:
Ongoing problem.
While much reduced against Detroit, Marcus Johnson still can't figure out the snap count.
Let's see how long he stays on the pine.

Jury still out on change.

Play Calling:
Childress' scheme is the same tired out short dump off scheme that has been the hallmark of the WCO since the WCO was created.
Everyone knows what to expect.
Teams that run it well have several aces up their sleeves.


An Elite QB
An Elite WR
An Elite RB

Usually, they have at least 2 of the 3.
We have none of the above.
Chester is the closest thing we have, but I wouldn't go crowning him "Elite" just yet.
He's what I call "servicable".

So, Childress is trying to run an outmoded Offense without the talent to pull it off.
Still awaiting change.

Now, as was mentioned earlier, new HC's get 3 years.
Childress willl get his 3, but he'd better start showing drastic improvement next season.
I doubt that Viking fans are going to tolerate too many sub-.500 seasons after bringing him in after a 9-7 season.
By rights, he should have been able to hit at least 9-7...right now, that's a long shot.

Caine


O-line: The change had no noticable effect. Still getting pressured, still taking big sacks, still penalties. Change is great but sometimes you have to ask yourself if you have two pair of underwear and they are both dirty what difference does it really make?

WR's: You have what you have. He is dropping passes which means he is getting open. Now if Childress see's our other WR's lack the abilty to get open then what choice does he have. Come on guys, our WR core is a bunch of has beens and should have beens. I don't even understand this angle.

Defense: This one is great because (and I know you don't do this Caine) but people give Tomlin credit for everything, he is the best coach we have, he calls the defense, on and on and yet somehow it is Childress' fault that the zone is being played.

Penalties: I don't really see how any of this falls on Childress. Our whole line with the exception of Hutch has been getting called for penalties all year, even Wittle who was a replacement.

Play Calling: It is the WCO it will continue to be the WCO. Everyone in football knows what to expect of everyone. It always comes down to execution. How many times do you see a guy running free down the field open? Not very often and the reason is these teams are well prepared, they know your sets, they know your plays, and what it comes down to is who is going to get the job done. At the point of impact who is going to win the battle. Our crappy plays worked mighty fine agains the Hawks. Find a system in football that works without elite players.

The WCO is valid. No offense would work if it faced the turmoil ours has. Last week we were the second most penalized team on offense in the entire NFL. I haven't checked this week, but find me an offense that runs great WCO or not when you have as many mistakes as we have.

Prophet
11-22-2006, 12:39 PM
"Caine" wrote:


AS the HC, it is your job to adjust as required to improve your team...Childress has been very slow to do that.
A few examples of that:

O-Line:
Anyone else notice how much time Brad Johnson had once Hicks and Johnson were removed from the line?
Suddenly, instead of a turnstile, we had a hedge.
Sure, it was a small hedge, and the leaves were all falling off, and the dog crapped in it, but it was more than we had before.

And it only took 10 games to make the change.

Receivers:
Troy Williamson, who has dropped more balls than he's caught (OK, not really, he's dropped 11 and caught 27....but you get the idea), is STILL listed as our #1 receiver.
Does Childress honestly think that any team in the NFL is stupid enough to think that Troy gets a serious look at this point?


Time until change - 10 games and counting.

Defense:
We played that zone 2 defense for 9 1/2 games.
Soft coverage, big cushion, the works.
The intent was to stop big plays....which we did, unless they put in Whitaker.
Odd how once we closed the cushions and started popping people at the line the passing game locked up.

And it only took 9 1/2 games to figure that out.

Penalties:
Ongoing problem.
While much reduced against Detroit, Marcus Johnson still can't figure out the snap count.
Let's see how long he stays on the pine.

Jury still out on change.

Play Calling:
Childress' scheme is the same tired out short dump off scheme that has been the hallmark of the WCO since the WCO was created.
Everyone knows what to expect.
Teams that run it well have several aces up their sleeves.


An Elite QB
An Elite WR
An Elite RB

Usually, they have at least 2 of the 3.
We have none of the above.
Chester is the closest thing we have, but I wouldn't go crowning him "Elite" just yet.
He's what I call "servicable".

So, Childress is trying to run an outmoded Offense without the talent to pull it off.
Still awaiting change.

Now, as was mentioned earlier, new HC's get 3 years.
Childress willl get his 3, but he'd better start showing drastic improvement next season.
I doubt that Viking fans are going to tolerate too many sub-.500 seasons after bringing him in after a 9-7 season.
By rights, he should have been able to hit at least 9-7...right now, that's a long shot.

Caine


The increased time BJ had wsa noticable in the Dolphins game.
Hopefully that will improve on the right.
The Willliamson at #1 has me baffled too, suspect.
Bethel Johnson shows some promise, that was a change.
The offseason woes at WR with the whole high-speed ordeal a few days after the morons on MNF were throwing accolades at K-Rob was pathetic.
The receiving corps has underperformed in dramatic fashion.

The D secondary has been suspect the whole season, I think Del pointed that out after the first game.
The run D has obviously been outstanding...the one-dimensional approach the Vikings have forced their opponents into should make coaching the secondary easier???
I would sure think so.
I've been disappointed with the lack of pressure the D has been putting on the QBs.
The GB game in particular.
WTH, they can't pressure Favre with our stud D-line and two rookies on the Packers line?

Penalties have improved somewhat, but the timing of penalites still has been the archilles heel in a few games.

Looking at the four game slide it appears to be a long shot to finish strong.
Looking at the schedule it is doable.
I'm still sticking by my 9-7 finish.

The whole WCO spiel is on.
Most didn't think Williamson was going to stink it up this bad this year.
Nobody thought BJ was the QB of the future, we haven't seen him yet.
Childress is banking on Tarvaris being the 'elite' QB in the not so distant future.
That still leaves the Vikings without a #1 WR.
I have no problems with Chester being called servicable, that is good in the NFL.
I don't see him being a L. Tomlinson, but I think he can be a top 10 RB in the league for receiving and rushing.
If Tarvaris pans out like Childress' hopes and they pick up a #1 WR through free agency all will be well in the world....the lines will always be a focus based on the first sentence uttered out of Childress' mouth pertaining to the Vikings when he accepted the HC job.

One of the big obstacles on whether Childress has the nads to get the job done is how he pulls the team together after the slide and funk they are in.
They don't need much improvement to turn the games into Ws, one fricken score determined five of the losses.
How he handles the season the rest of the way out will be one of the determining factors on whether or not he gets a + or - in my rating scale, for whatever that's worth.

snowinapril
11-22-2006, 12:59 PM
That is what happens when you lose 4 games in a row.
Confidence dwindles!

Gift
11-22-2006, 02:33 PM
"Del" wrote:


Someone has to take the blame. The fans tried to pin it on BJ, but Childress would not budge, so now he is the fall guy.
Bingo!

BadlandsVikings
11-22-2006, 02:39 PM
THe head coach is always the first to be praised and the first to be crapped on

The Dropper
11-22-2006, 03:27 PM
If I were a Childress hater, I wouldn't uncork the bubbly just yet...

Typically in these sorts of polls, there are at least four choices given:
1. Approve
2. Neutral
3. Do Not Approve
4. I live under a rock and only come out when when I smell pork rinds or the local TV-news station needs someone to interview (AKA "I Don't Know").

This poll for coaches' approval ratings only gives us one of these four figures. It's basically inconceivable that 13% approve and 87% don't approve. If I had to guess, I'd say that probably the overwhelming majority are in the the category I myself am currently in: Neutral (more or less). So just because only 13% actually approve doesn't mean that 87% want BC's head on a platter, though it can sometimes seem like it round here...

Purple Floyd
11-22-2006, 04:02 PM
Excuses are fine, but the fact remains we are not getting the play we should from our players. Anybody who has watched the team the last few weeks that I have talked to has said the same thing, they are playing without direction, emotion or conviction like they were earlier in the year.

Childress might be a rookie coach but he was given a stable team, some top notch draft picks and the biggest salary cap checkbook of any coach to work with. He came in with the triangle of authority that brought in the,staff,the new talent and the scheme that he wanted. I do not feel that having higher expectations for the team considering all of this is out of line.Yes, we did lose some receivers at the start of the season but there were players out there that we could have gone after but instead were told that McMullen and Williamson would be fine. Compare that to the Packers who had a hard time finding a coach and supposedly on McCarthy, who was roundly trashed on this site and others. The Packers were wrote off as the worst team in the league and they came out and kicked the crap out of our guys on our home field. McCarthy had less talent and did not have the ability to bring in a huge staff to support him, he is starting 2 rookies and untested linemen and lost a star wide out to Denver when he forced a trade. At this point their team is improving and ours is starting to crack. If the players cannot execute the scheme, it would seem that adapting the scheme to the players would be a wise choice.

To say we have no talent on offense is interesting because in nearly every game we take the ball down the field and score. That tells me that the players can execute a game plan. But after that point the coaching staff does not adjust to or anticipate the changes that the opposition will make and we flounder. If the players were inept or talentless they would not be able to march down the field on opening drives with scripted plays, they would do the same dumb things they do the rest of the game.

Purple Kool Aid
11-22-2006, 04:18 PM
Personally I think Childress would be helped by giving up some of his control on the offense.
He spents his short week putting on the Head Coach hat and the Offensive Coord hat.
He should be head coach and get an O-Coord that he trusts and is capable.

The ONLY 2 weeks our offense has been productive has been week 1 and week 7 (coming out of the bye).
Both of which Childress had ample time to prepare a game plan for his offense AND be head coach to the rest of the team.
Maybe that is oversimplifying but until he gets more experience being HC, he should let someone else be OC.

NodakPaul
11-22-2006, 04:31 PM
A lot of people seem to think that Bevell is just a place holder as OC.
I disagree.
My belief is that he is in a role very similar to the role Childress was in Philly.
During the week, Bevell puts together the offensive game plan.
Childress executes it on game day.

JDogg926
11-22-2006, 04:37 PM
I don't hate Childress, but I can't say I'm sold on him yet either.

singersp
11-22-2006, 09:38 PM
"Del" wrote:


Someone has to take the blame. The fans tried to pin it on BJ, but Childress would not budge, so now he is the fall guy.


Give it a week or two. They'll be blaming Wilf for hiring Childress next.

Bdubya
11-22-2006, 09:51 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Del" wrote:


Someone has to take the blame. The fans tried to pin it on BJ, but Childress would not budge, so now he is the fall guy.


Give it a week or two. They'll be blaming Wilf for hiring Childress next.


And then people will blame this all on Red for selling the team to Wilf

Storm
11-24-2006, 05:00 AM
I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.

singersp
11-24-2006, 05:09 AM
"Storm" wrote:


I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.

Storm
11-24-2006, 05:25 AM
John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


Just more excuses... No one forced him to change those schemes, if you take charge and make changes, you better make sure those changes will work. Learning is NOT a good excuse for a failed season. Especially for a head coach.

I wonder what Childress backers will say when he messes up our next season. "But he needs more time to adjust to the artificial turf!"
::)

singersp
11-24-2006, 05:30 AM
"Storm" wrote:




John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


Just more excuses... No one forced him to change those schemes, if you take charge and make changes, you better make sure those changes will work. Learning is NOT a good excuse for a failed season. Especially for a head coach.

I wonder what Childress backers will say when he messes up our next season. "But he needs more time to adjust to the artificial turf!"
::)


Exactly how was he supposed to know what those schemes were, when the entire coaching staff was replaced?

Take a look at Lovie Smiths record in Chicago his first year & look at it now. He was 5-11 his first year & you would have shit-canned him after his first year.

Storm
11-24-2006, 06:09 AM
I dont find the defensive schemes to be all that different to be honest. We still play prevent D, with a lot of cushion and "dont give up big play" mentality. Our run D is superb, but our secondary blows as usual. What hurts us most is the inability to adjust on offense. Our game plans DO NOT WORK on offense. Oposing defenses are figuring us out too easyly and coach Childress DOES NOT ADJUST. I certainly dont think it has anything to do with schemes. Flexible game plan and reactive playcalling is what we need the most. Aside from execution on the field, but thats self-explanatory.

cogitans
11-24-2006, 06:33 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Storm" wrote:


I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


I agree with Singer.

Many of the Tampa players also said that they owed their succes to Dungy and the team he had built over the years.

And Gruden doesn't look like that good of a coach right now. There seems not to be any young talent on the defense.
His complicated offense worked with an expiriensed QB like Brad Johnson who put in a lot of hours in the video room, but the young kids can't execute it.

ejmat
11-24-2006, 08:29 AM
"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Storm" wrote:


I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


I agree with Singer.

Many of the Tampa players also said that they owed their succes to Dungy and the team he had built over the years.

And Gruden doesn't look like that good of a coach right now. There seems not to be any young talent on the defense.
His complicated offense worked with an expiriensed QB like Brad Johnson who put in a lot of hours in the video room, but the young kids can't execute it.


Let's not forget Gruden wasn't a rookie head coach when he went to Tampa either.

whackthepack
11-24-2006, 11:09 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Storm" wrote:


I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


I agree with Singer.

Many of the Tampa players also said that they owed their succes to Dungy and the team he had built over the years.

And Gruden doesn't look like that good of a coach right now. There seems not to be any young talent on the defense.
His complicated offense worked with an expiriensed QB like Brad Johnson who put in a lot of hours in the video room, but the young kids can't execute it.


Let's not forget Gruden wasn't a rookie head coach when he went to Tampa either.





Gruden's NFL coaching record

Oakland

1998

8 - 8
1999

8 - 8
2000

12 - 4
Playoffs 1 - 1
2001

10 - 6
Playoffs 1 - 1



Tampa Bay

2002

12 - 4
Playoffs
3 - 0
2003

7 - 9
2004

5 - 11
2005

11 - 5
Playoffs
0 - 1
2006

3 - 8


Gruden had experience before taking over at Tampa Bay and took over a team that was very talented and underachieving.
What happened in 2003 and 2004?

Prophet
11-24-2006, 11:27 AM
"whackthepack" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Storm" wrote:


I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


I agree with Singer.

Many of the Tampa players also said that they owed their success to Dungy and the team he had built over the years.

And Gruden doesn't look like that good of a coach right now. There seems not to be any young talent on the defense.
His complicated offense worked with an expiriensed QB like Brad Johnson who put in a lot of hours in the video room, but the young kids can't execute it.


Let's not forget Gruden wasn't a rookie head coach when he went to Tampa either.





Gruden's NFL coaching record

Oakland

1998


8 - 8
1999


8 - 8
2000

12 - 4
Playoffs 1 - 1
2001

10 - 6
Playoffs 1 - 1



Tampa Bay

2002

12 - 4
Playoffs
3 - 0
2003


7 - 9
2004


5 - 11
2005

11 - 5
Playoffs
0 - 1
2006


3 - 8


Gruden had experience before taking over at Tampa Bay and took over a team that was very talented and underachieving.
What happened in 2003 and 2004?


WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.

cogitans
11-24-2006, 12:17 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"whackthepack" wrote:


"ejmat" wrote:


"cogitans" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




I dont buy the whole "Childress is learning new schemes" excuse. John Gruden went to Tampa and won SB in his first year there.
::) If you're HC in this league, you dont waste whole seasons learning stuff, you are expected to make at least "some" inpact upon arrival.

Not to say that the blame lies solely on his shoulders, but he clearly doesnt get the job done so far. The glaring inabilty to adapt during games has cost us more than few games already.


John Gruden inherited a Super bowl caliber team that Tony Dungy had built. He just added a little bit more to the offense.

He also did not bring in entirely new schemes on offense & defense & an entire new coaching staff.


I agree with Singer.

Many of the Tampa players also said that they owed their success to Dungy and the team he had built over the years.

And Gruden doesn't look like that good of a coach right now. There seems not to be any young talent on the defense.
His complicated offense worked with an expiriensed QB like Brad Johnson who put in a lot of hours in the video room, but the young kids can't execute it.


Let's not forget Gruden wasn't a rookie head coach when he went to Tampa either.





Gruden's NFL coaching record

Oakland

1998

8 - 8
1999

8 - 8
2000

12 - 4
Playoffs 1 - 1
2001

10 - 6
Playoffs 1 - 1



Tampa Bay

2002

12 - 4
Playoffs
3 - 0
2003

7 - 9
2004

5 - 11
2005

11 - 5
Playoffs
0 - 1
2006

3 - 8


Gruden had experience before taking over at Tampa Bay and took over a team that was very talented and underachieving.
What happened in 2003 and 2004?


WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.


All I said was that I think he has proven to be bad in Tampa.

He took over a talented team and won a SB with them the first year because he were probably what was missing.

Now the stars are getting old, and aside maybe from Caddilac I don't think they have that much young talent.

Big C
11-24-2006, 12:17 PM
The Bears first two years with Lovie Smith was worse than what we have now. Look where they are now. Give Childress some time to make this team consistent contenders. Koren's release (which was required IMO) hurt the team more than we like to admit. WR is keeping this offense from rolling.

I'd wait two more years before passing judgement. Same think happened with Marve Lewis. I'm happy with Childress for now. You can't blame him for interceptions and fumbles.

Storm
11-24-2006, 02:19 PM
WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.


Learn to read. The point was that Childress is learning new schemes in a new team, no one mentioned that he is a rookie. You can be a coach with 20 year experience but you still need to learn when you enter a new system. Trying hard to be sarcastic when you have nothing to say is not a good way to get your point across. ::)

Prophet
11-24-2006, 02:32 PM
"Storm" wrote:




WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.


Learn to read. The point was that Childress is learning new schemes in a new team, no one mentioned that he is a rookie. You can be a coach with 20 year experience but you still need to learn when you enter a new system. Trying hard to be sarcastic when you have nothing to say is not a good way to get your point across. ::)


If you compare apples to oranges and imply you are comparing apples to apples you will get called on it.
I never try to be sarcastic, I am sarcastic.
My point remains the same, it was addressed to WTP.

whackthepack
11-24-2006, 02:49 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"Storm" wrote:




WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.


Learn to read. The point was that Childress is learning new schemes in a new team, no one mentioned that he is a rookie. You can be a coach with 20 year experience but you still need to learn when you enter a new system. Trying hard to be sarcastic when you have nothing to say is not a good way to get your point across. ::)


If you compare apples to oranges and imply you are comparing apples to apples you will get called on it.
I never try to be sarcastic, I am sarcastic.
My point remains the same, it was addressed to WTP.


Accuman don't take it personal some people never catch on.

singersp
11-24-2006, 06:53 PM
"Storm" wrote:




WTP, you seen to forget that some don't want their opinions mired with factual history.
You are suppose to omit the part where Gruden was the HC for the Raiders prior to taking over the Dungy-led team.
Omission of facts is the key to a weak argument.


Learn to read. The point was that Childress is learning new schemes in a new team, no one mentioned that he is a rookie. You can be a coach with 20 year experience but you still need to learn when you enter a new system. Trying hard to be sarcastic when you have nothing to say is not a good way to get your point across. ::)


Childress is learning a new system & new schemes?

Huh? And here all this time I was thinking he was the HC & they were his schemes & his system that he was teaching the players.

So tell me, whose schemes & whose system is Childress trying to learn?

marshallvike
11-25-2006, 05:51 PM
"cyviking" wrote:


too early for such poor a rating...
im not a Childress backer and not a hater I think he deserves a fair chance is all. it makes me sad to see how quick viking fans are to get out the pitchforks and torches.

you are right.
it has been a roller coaster though. before the season, expectations were not too high. after the first six games we all raised those expectations considerably,(perhaps unreasonably. that makes it harder to accept the results of the past 4 games. maybe we,(I) need to take a step back and see if we can make progress from here on out.

Braddock
11-25-2006, 05:57 PM
"Acumen" wrote:


"CCthebest" wrote:


Or maybe when your team has gotten progressionaly worse, and makes stupid turnovers, penalties and dropped passes, the HC isnt doing his job right? Maybe take someone who has more INTs then TDs, or gets called for penalties all the time, or drops passes, out of the game for a week or more?


You win.
You're in the 87% while I'm in the 13%.
I'm proud to say that I don't make judgement on someone's 29+ year career based on a couple of games.
If that's your ticket, more power to you.


Acumen, I for one am glad you are around. Thank you and God bless.

NordicNed
11-25-2006, 06:10 PM
Still to early to put a fork in Childress, as a matter of fact, I think he is going to be just fine and someday remembered as one of best coaches ever.....He gets the 3 years to prove himself to me, but I really do believe he has the makings of being a top shelf coach in the NFL......



Only time will tell for sure....

vikes09
11-26-2006, 10:46 AM
Why 3 years? off the top of my head thinking about coaches that have been with their team for a decent amount of time, bill cowher (sp?), andy reid, mike shanahan, even holmgren. childress is a good HC, unlike meathead tice who was brought in because of cheap-butt red, and i sure hope he sticks around for many years as the vikings HC.

(nice website btw kramer!)

Prophet
11-27-2006, 11:01 AM
"Acumen" wrote:


NFL HC approval ratings (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/sportsnation/ratings)

Childress ranks dead last according to the fans, considered by some to be at the top of the intellectual cess pool.

Kind of funny, look how much Childress' approval went up after the Vikings squeaked by a W against the worse team in the league.

Stay the course, the three units perform in Chi-town.

Angel_Martin
12-06-2006, 10:16 PM
Childress is out of the cellar -- he is moving up to third from the bottom.

With a win this week, he just might get up to a 30 per cent approval rating.
I think he would be a much better coach with a better QB at the helm, at least
to the fans.....

idahovikefan7
12-06-2006, 10:57 PM
I still think he is an ok coach......but he does call some dumb plays at times.