PDA

View Full Version : Wilf: Childress’ job security doesn’t depend on 2008 playoffs



singersp
04-02-2008, 07:01 AM
Wilf: Childress’ job security doesn’t depend on 2008 playoffs (http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1489)

April 1st, 2008 – 7:56 PM

by Kevin Seifert
startribune.com


After a few nervous moments over the past two days, we finally caught up with Vikings owner Zygi Wilf tonight. We’ll save most of our interview for tomorrow’s paper (hey, we still need some people to drop 50 cents in the ole box), but we will bring you this snippet.....

singersp
04-02-2008, 07:02 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Wilf: Childress’ job security doesn’t depend on 2008 playoffs (http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1489)

April 1st, 2008 – 7:56 PM

by Kevin Seifert
startribune.com


I'll take that with a grain of salt. He said Tice's job wasn't in jeopardy in 2005 as well.
;)

AngloVike
04-02-2008, 07:03 AM
He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.

Marrdro
04-02-2008, 07:25 AM
"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.
Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the "Ownership Group" had a plan and they are executing it and one of the major considerations to that plan was that some fans were gonna be disgruntled as they built through the draft and let those kids play even though it would means that they would lose a few games as the kids matured on the field.

Long story short, it doesn't matter what we say on boards like this or what news paper hacks write in thier papers.
As long as the FO and Coaching staff continue to execute the plan and the team continues to improve, the Chiller or the FO pukes aren't going anywhere (as evidenced by Spielmans extension).
;D

singersp
04-02-2008, 07:30 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.
Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.



Hmm! I believe you did when we were talking about FA signings. I think you even referenced Thompson & the Packers doing it in your post.

I'll have to do some checking after work.

Zeus
04-02-2008, 07:31 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.

Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the "Ownership Group" had a plan and they are executing it and one of the major considerations to that plan was that some fans were gonna be disgruntled as they built through the draft and let those kids play even though it would means that they would lose a few games as the kids matured on the field.

Long story short, it doesn't matter what we say on boards like this or what news paper hacks write in thier papers.
As long as the FO and Coaching staff continue to execute the plan and the team continues to improve, the Chiller or the FO pukes aren't going anywhere (as evidenced by Spielmans extension).

;D


I disagree whole-heartedly.
If the Vikings don't make the playoffs, there needs to be a damn good reason other than coaching failure to account for a big chunk of that.
Devastating injuries, for example, is something that cannot be controlled.
But if the Vikings fail to progress on the passing offense and passing defense and regress on the rushing offense and rushing defense, Childress is toast.

=Z=

Marrdro
04-02-2008, 08:18 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.

Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the "Ownership Group" had a plan and they are executing it and one of the major considerations to that plan was that some fans were gonna be disgruntled as they built through the draft and let those kids play even though it would means that they would lose a few games as the kids matured on the field.

Long story short, it doesn't matter what we say on boards like this or what news paper hacks write in thier papers.
As long as the FO and Coaching staff continue to execute the plan and the team continues to improve, the Chiller or the FO pukes aren't going anywhere (as evidenced by Spielmans extension).

;D


I disagree whole-heartedly.
If the Vikings don't make the playoffs, there needs to be a gol 'darnit good reason other than coaching failure to account for a big chunk of that.
Devastating injuries, for example, is something that cannot be controlled.
But if the Vikings fail to progress on the passing offense and passing defense and regress on the rushing offense and rushing defense, Childress is toast.

=Z=

I hear that you disagree but you give me nothing that would convince me that the owner didn't mean what he said when he said he doesn't worry about those benchmarks.

C Mac D
04-02-2008, 08:20 AM
Damn....

Prophet
04-02-2008, 08:26 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.

Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the "Ownership Group" had a plan and they are executing it and one of the major considerations to that plan was that some fans were gonna be disgruntled as they built through the draft and let those kids play even though it would means that they would lose a few games as the kids matured on the field.

Long story short, it doesn't matter what we say on boards like this or what news paper hacks write in thier papers.
As long as the FO and Coaching staff continue to execute the plan and the team continues to improve, the Chiller or the FO pukes aren't going anywhere (as evidenced by Spielmans extension).

;D


I disagree whole-heartedly.
If the Vikings don't make the playoffs, there needs to be a gol 'darnit good reason other than coaching failure to account for a big chunk of that.
Devastating injuries, for example, is something that cannot be controlled.
But if the Vikings fail to progress on the passing offense and passing defense and regress on the rushing offense and rushing defense, Childress is toast.

=Z=

I hear that you disagree but you give me nothing that would convince me that the owner didn't mean what he said when he said he doesn't worry about those benchmarks.



In a scenario where it was obviously coaching inadequacies that made them fold Wilf is enough of a businessman to know that sending Childress to the guillotine is the only option.
The question remains whether that is a likely scenario or, more likely, will the majority of the fans go into an uproar with their fanatical subjective reasoning looking for a scapegoat to account for the perceived weaknesses of the team.


Bottom-line is that the fan's opinions influence ticket sales and the potential of getting a new stadium approved.
If that's the case, heads will roll.
The reasons or logistics behind the heads that roll will be played out in an economic analysis disguised as change for the better.

Marrdro
04-02-2008, 08:31 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"AngloVike" wrote:


He may not be setting benchmarks but there needs to be a clear improvement in the team and good reason for not reaching the playoffs - otherwise backing or not Childress could be on his way after the season.

Why?

Because some fans are disgruntled?
Does anybody believe that the "Ownership Group" thought that they would put a NFL ready team on the field via the draft?
I don't.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, the "Ownership Group" had a plan and they are executing it and one of the major considerations to that plan was that some fans were gonna be disgruntled as they built through the draft and let those kids play even though it would means that they would lose a few games as the kids matured on the field.

Long story short, it doesn't matter what we say on boards like this or what news paper hacks write in thier papers.
As long as the FO and Coaching staff continue to execute the plan and the team continues to improve, the Chiller or the FO pukes aren't going anywhere (as evidenced by Spielmans extension).

;D


I disagree whole-heartedly.
If the Vikings don't make the playoffs, there needs to be a gol 'darnit good reason other than coaching failure to account for a big chunk of that.
Devastating injuries, for example, is something that cannot be controlled.
But if the Vikings fail to progress on the passing offense and passing defense and regress on the rushing offense and rushing defense, Childress is toast.

=Z=

I hear that you disagree but you give me nothing that would convince me that the owner didn't mean what he said when he said he doesn't worry about those benchmarks.



In a scenario where it was obviously coaching inadequacies that made them fold Wilf is enough of a businessman to know that sending Childress to the guillotine is the only option.
The question remains whether that is a likely scenario or, more likely, will the majority of the fans go into an uproar with their fanatical subjective reasoning looking for a scapegoat to account for the perceived weaknesses of the team.


Bottom-line is that the fan's opinions influence ticket sales and the potential of getting a new stadium approved.
If that's the case, heads will roll.
The reasons or logistics behind the heads that roll will be played out in an economic analysis disguised as change for the better.

I hear ya.

Heads really rolled when we went 6-10 and then 8-8 and blackouts loomed and there was no support for a stadium.
;D

Fans aren't the ones that will get votes for stadium support, that falls to the little old lady who doesn't watch football and who is worried about taxes and if she can get medicine for herself and food for her cats.

Garland Greene
04-02-2008, 08:33 AM
Chilly Job will depend upon where we are sitting mid season with our QB situation. WHOEVER the QB is,how they are doing, and how the situation is being handled good, bad, or otherwise will determine where we and Chilly are at at the end of the season.

davike
04-02-2008, 08:52 AM
"C" wrote:


gol 'darnit....


LOL I knew you would love this thread Mac
;)

So pretty much he told them again what he has been telling them for the past two seasons?
:o :o

*Shocked

C Mac D
04-02-2008, 08:54 AM
"davike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


gol 'darnit....


LOL I knew you would love this thread Mac
;)

So pretty much he told them again what he has been telling them for the past two seasons?
:o :o

*Shocked


Serioulsy though... if we are 1-15 at the end of next season, I'm opening this thread back up.

Prophet
04-02-2008, 08:56 AM
"C" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


gol 'darnit....


LOL I knew you would love this thread Mac
;)

So pretty much he told them again what he has been telling them for the past two seasons?
:o :o

*Shocked


Serioulsy though... if we are 1-15 at the end of next season, I'm opening this thread back up.


lmao, if we're 1-15 next year the morons will be out in full force on this site.
There are a bunch that never post unless the team is doing poorly....they stop by and post their hate and disappear into the shadows when the team is doing well.
It would be a good year for them.

Marrdro
04-02-2008, 08:56 AM
"C" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


gol 'darnit....


LOL I knew you would love this thread Mac
;)

So pretty much he told them again what he has been telling them for the past two seasons?
:o :o

*Shocked


Serioulsy though... if we are 1-15 at the end of next season, I'm opening this thread back up.

If we are 1-15 next season I will beat you to it.
;D

davike
04-02-2008, 09:47 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"C" wrote:


gol 'darnit....


LOL I knew you would love this thread Mac
;)

So pretty much he told them again what he has been telling them for the past two seasons?
:o :o

*Shocked


Serioulsy though... if we are 1-15 at the end of next season, I'm opening this thread back up.

If we are 1-15 next season I will beat you to it.

;D


You guys won't need to because if we were 1-15 I would have already killed Childress a couple weeks before.

BloodyHorns82
04-02-2008, 09:50 AM
I don't see the need for Wilf to keep reiterating that Childress' job is safe and secure...I want to see beads of sweet rolling down that shiney forehead!

V-Unit
04-02-2008, 10:27 PM
It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.

Overlord
04-02-2008, 10:44 PM
"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.

kevoncox
04-02-2008, 11:43 PM
"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


Mediocrity?....THIS IS Minnesota!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/1647380211_868eac1d5f.jpg?v=0

kevoncox
04-02-2008, 11:46 PM
"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome

Braddock
04-03-2008, 12:05 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Calm down

vikingivan
04-03-2008, 08:27 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Do you mean 2 more seasons of crappy play calling?
I have to disagree.
Childress has already had 2 years of poor play calling.
If the Vikings do not make the playoffs this year.
He should be gone.
I wonder how many losses it will take to have someone start a Bill Cowher thread again.

NodakPaul
04-03-2008, 08:59 AM
"vikingivan" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Do you mean 2 more seasons of crappy play calling?
I have to disagree.
Childress has already had 2 years of poor play calling.
If the Vikings do not make the playoffs this year.
He should be gone.
I wonder how many losses it will take to have someone start a Bill Cowher thread again.


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.

Marrdro
04-03-2008, 09:07 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.

Very nice post my friend, except for the last line.......

You and I both know that the local sports media 9and several yutz's on here as well by the way) will still beeeyyyatch about the Chiller even if the Vikes won it all this year.
Because those same sports hacks are the normal source of info on the Vikes for 90% of all Vikings fans thier excitement level will always be skewed no matter what thier record.

To think that a 10-6 season would make them happy is just silly.
In short, they will always find something to spew thier negative drivel over regardless of what reality is.
;D

ItalianStallion
04-03-2008, 09:20 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:



See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season. The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.


Offensive problems are always execution.
If every play was executed like it was drawn up it would be a touchdown almost every play.


I think the play calling last year was considerably better than 2 years ago.
Though it still boggles my mind why we throw 5 yard passes on 3rd and 7+

NodakPaul
04-03-2008, 09:29 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts. If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.

Very nice post my friend, except for the last line.......

You and I both know that the local sports media 9and several yutz's on here as well by the way) will still beeeyyyatch about the Chiller even if the Vikes won it all this year.
Because those same sports hacks are the normal source of info on the Vikes for 90% of all Vikings fans thier excitement level will always be skewed no matter what thier record.

To think that a 10-6 season would make them happy is just silly.
In short, they will always find something to spew thier negative drivel over regardless of what reality is.
;D


Wilf isn't trying to please the media.
He is trying to excite the public.
And a 10-6 finish, even if we just miss the playoffs could do a lot to generate excitement.

tastywaves
04-03-2008, 10:20 AM
If progress is not made with this team in 2008, Childress should be worried about his job and I think he is well aware of it.
I am expecting a more competent team in 2008.
Wilf doesn't have to come out and say it to the public or even to Childress to make it the end result.
See Singer's comment on Tice.

The fans do matter and it will sway Wilf's decision, he is a businessman first, and fans are required to make this work.
However, he's selling a product thats hard to alienate the majority of hte fan base, so he has a quite a bit of leeway to put a mediocre product out and still maintain a healthy fan base.


Right now we are picked to be a mediocre team, 16-17 in the power rankings.
When the record predictions come out we will probably waiver from 6-10 to 10-6.
Our talent level puts us in the mediocre crowd at this point.
Getting to 10-6 or 11-5 would be considered IMO a good year for this team.
Whenever this season prediction polls come out,
I would guess that the majority of this forum would put us in the 8-8 to 10-6 category.
Few will be expecting an 11-12 win season or a losing record.
In a lot of ways we are looking for a slightly above mediocre team, a playoff contender.

Going 8-8 or less will be disappointing and will be hard to hold the faith that this thing is coming together.
Today's NFL doesn't revolve around 5-6 yr plans, too many pieces change from year to year. Childress should be under some pressure to have a successful 3rd year, if not, than I might have to agree that mediocrity is tolerable by the ownership.

When its all said and done I see us in playoff pursuit throughout the season, with a good chance of making it.
We will have good and bad games similar to last year, but hopefully we will add a bit more dimension to our offense and make us a serious competitor to the best teams in the league.

I would rather see us lose to a shitty team or two, balanced by beating an elite team or two, to know that if we make the playoffs we actually have a chance of winning.

Beating Green Bay on week 1 will be a nice way to get things going.

Overlord
04-03-2008, 10:21 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Do you mean 2 more seasons of crappy play calling?
I have to disagree.
Childress has already had 2 years of poor play calling.
If the Vikings do not make the playoffs this year.
He should be gone.
I wonder how many losses it will take to have someone start a Bill Cowher thread again.


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.


I've disagreed with the play-calling on numerous occasions, but it did seem to be better this year than last year.
My main concerns remain: 1) passing the ball too much, especially on 3rd-and-short; and 2) always punting the ball between the 40's on 4th-and-reasonable.
Childress makes other bad in game mistakes too, such as his inability to throw a red flag at the appropriate time.
But in-game decisions are only one part of coaching.
Most of coaching goes on during days other than Sunday.

Nonetheless, I think Childress is responsible for the play-calling, regardless of who is actually calling the plays.
He's the one that decides who will call the plays, so if he chooses Bevell, himself, or a talking parrot to do the job, then he's on the hook for their performance.

In general, I get back to what NodakPaul said in his third paragraph - the point is that Childress will be judged based on how he does as a coach, and that he could stay or go regardless of whether the team makes the playoffs.
I happen to think that fan sentiment isn't going to be that big of a factor, because if Wilf believes he has a good coach then he'll believe that the team will come around and the fans with it.
Of course, fan sentiment is related to the coach's performance, so there would be some saying he was fired because of the fans even if that weren't the case.

NodakPaul
04-03-2008, 10:26 AM
"Overlord" wrote:


In general, I get back to what NodakPaul said in his third paragraph - the point is that Childress will be judged based on how he does as a coach, and that he could stay or go regardless of whether the team makes the playoffs.
I happen to think that fan sentiment isn't going to be that big of a factor, because if Wilf believes he has a good coach then he'll believe that the team will come around and the fans with it.
Of course, fan sentiment is related to the coach's performance, so there would be some saying he was fired because of the fans even if that weren't the case.


If we have a bad season and Childress gets fired, it wouldn't be because of the fans per sea.
It would be because Wilf would need to do something to generate positive attitude toward the Vikings if he wants the stadium to go through in 2009.
This is not the same as saying, "The fans don't like Childress, so I am firing him."
He is saying "The general public is not happy with the Vikings, and that affects my stadium bid.
Changing head coaches is one of the things I can and will implement to generate positive attitude toward the Vikings again."

Marrdro
04-03-2008, 10:29 AM
"Overlord" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:




It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Do you mean 2 more seasons of crappy play calling?
I have to disagree.
Childress has already had 2 years of poor play calling.
If the Vikings do not make the playoffs this year.
He should be gone.
I wonder how many losses it will take to have someone start a Bill Cowher thread again.


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.


I've disagreed with the play-calling on numerous occasions, but it did seem to be better this year than last year.
My main concerns remain: 1) passing the ball too much, especially on 3rd-and-short; and 2) always punting the ball between the 40's on 4th-and-reasonable.
Childress makes other bad in game mistakes too, such as his inability to throw a red flag at the appropriate time.
But in-game decisions are only one part of coaching.
Most of coaching goes on during days other than Sunday.

Nonetheless, I think Childress is responsible for the play-calling, regardless of who is actually calling the plays.
He's the one that decides who will call the plays, so if he chooses Bevell, himself, or a talking parrot to do the job, then he's on the hook for their performance.

In general, I get back to what NodakPaul said in his third paragraph - the point is that Childress will be judged based on how he does as a coach, and that he could stay or go regardless of whether the team makes the playoffs.
I happen to think that fan sentiment isn't going to be that big of a factor, because if Wilf believes he has a good coach then he'll believe that the team will come around and the fans with it.
Of course, fan sentiment is related to the coach's performance, so there would be some saying he was fired because of the fans even if that weren't the case.

That is my point exactly.

If fan support was that big of an issue he would have been gone year one or even year two.

Again, consistency at key leadership positions is the answer to a long term solution for this team.
A bunch of yutz fans who want instant gratification every year will not sway the "Ownership Groups" opinion on that.

This team would really have to tank and completely quit playing for this coaching staff for him to get the boot next year.
Judging on the progress we've seen over the last two years, I really don't see anything of that nature happening.


The young kids will continue to learn on the field (which will affect consistency) and we will beat teams we aren't supposed to and lose to team we aren't supposed to because of that, but we won't see a change at the HC position next year my friends.

At least that is what I believe.
;D

vikingivan
04-03-2008, 12:27 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"Overlord" wrote:


"V" wrote:


It's all to silence the media. Either way though I wish he wouldn't say it. It's like admitting that he would be ok with mediocrity.


I disagree with all of these statements.

I don't think it's all to silence the media.
If he wanted to silence the media, he would just say, "Childress will be back in 2009."
Instead, he said that he doesn't evaluate based on benchmarks such as making the playoffs.
Makes sense to me, and I believe Wilf when he says it.

I don't think him saying really matters, although I like the philosophy behind it.
In my opinion, Childress should be judged on his performance, not on chance and circumstance.
Making the playoffs involves a lot of factors.
Only one of those is the performance of the coaching staff.
That factor is probably less important than talent and blind luck.
Heck, the Browns were 10-6 this year and didn't make the playoffs.
Even if your coaching staff and team does well, things might work against you.

And I don't think it means that he's okay with mediocrity.
I think it just means that he has a long term view of the thing.
In any given year anything can happen, but not making the playoffs one year doesn't mean your franchise is mediocre.
It's my opinion that you win more in the long run with stability.
I think that's Wilf's opinion too.
I also think that he believes Childress is a pretty good coach.
It sounds like there's not going to be a change then until that opinion changes or Childress leaves of his own accord.


It will take 2 seasons of crappy play calling t ge this guy fired. That 5 game wining streak at the end of last year, moved him out of the kitchen. He has a long way to go before he's fired. We love being average. 8 and 8 is he goal each season. He we may even go 9 and 7!!! Awesome


Do you mean 2 more seasons of crappy play calling?
I have to disagree.
Childress has already had 2 years of poor play calling.
If the Vikings do not make the playoffs this year.
He should be gone.
I wonder how many losses it will take to have someone start a Bill Cowher thread again.


See, it is posts like this that make me laugh a little.
Childress didn't call the plays last year.
Bevel did.
Yes, I know some of you believe that Childress still pulls the strings, and I agree that he probably does, but the playcalling was completely different this year compared to last.

In 2006 the playcalling was very vanilla.
I knew that, you knew that, Childress figured it out.
In 2007, the only criticism I have for the play calling is the lack of screens all season.
The rest of the offensive problems were entirely execution.

And no, I don't think that anybody is happy with mediocrity.
What Wilf said is that the playoffs were not the litmus test of whether or not Childress retains his job.
That means that if we go 10-6, and just miss the playoffs, he could likely be back.
It also means that if we go 9-7, make the playoffs, and get destroyed in the first round - he may not be.

I actually think that a lot of Childress's job hangs on the public impression of the Vikings at the end of the season.
Remember, 2009 is the year for the big stadium push.
We need to have excitement surrounding the Vikings when the legislative year starts.
If that excitement is not there at the end of the season, I think Wilf will do some house cleaning to generate some.


It took Childress almost half the season to come to the conclusion that AD needed more carries.
They had intended for him to split the carries with Taylor and after the game Taylor would have twice the carries.
The Chiller would scratch his head, and think how is that possible.
Finally, they started to keep track of each backs carries, ensuring that AD would get his touches.
That is poor coaching, plain and simple.

NodakPaul
04-03-2008, 03:30 PM
"vikingivan" wrote:



It took Childress almost half the season to come to the conclusion that AD needed more carries.
They had intended for him to split the carries with Taylor and after the game Taylor would have twice the carries.
The Chiller would scratch his head, and think how is that possible.
Finally, they started to keep track of each backs carries, ensuring that AD would get his touches.
That is poor coaching, plain and simple.


LMFAO!
That is how you really think it happened, don't you?

You know one of the things that separates coaches from fans?
Fans rely solely on their own perception of what happened to make decisions, while coaches make decisions based on research and real performance.
Here is the break down of the number of carries per game between AD and Taylor:


GameADTaylor
ATL193
DET20--
KC25--
GB128
CHI2022
DAL1210
PHI206
SD309
GB113
OAK--22
NYG--31
DET1514
SF148
CHI205
WAS96
DEN1110


Now go ahead and find me any game where CT had twice the carries over AD.
If you can, I will buy Vikigns tickets to the game of your choice.
But you won't be able to, because CT never had twice the carries.
In fact, there was only one game in which they both played that CT even had more than AD.
That was week 6 against Chicago (BTW, also the game in which AD broke the Vikings single game rushing record - so I think the way AD was used was just fine...).

This is a perfect example of a fan watching the games, convinced he could coach the team better, and criticizing Childress without having and idea what the hell they are talking about.
I believe the proper term is "talking out of your ass."

Now whose scratching their head looking confused?

Marrdro
04-04-2008, 08:55 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


LMFAO!
That is how you really think it happened, don't you?

You know one of the things that separates coaches from fans?
Fans rely solely on their own perception of what happened to make decisions, while coaches make decisions based on research and real performance.
Here is the break down of the number of carries per game between AD and Taylor:


GameADTaylor
ATL193
DET20--
KC25--
GB128
CHI2022
DAL1210
PHI206
SD309
GB113
OAK--22
NYG--31
DET1514
SF148
CHI205
WAS96
DEN1110


Now go ahead and find me any game where CT had twice the carries over AD.
If you can, I will buy Vikigns tickets to the game of your choice.
But you won't be able to, because CT never had twice the carries.
In fact, there was only one game in which they both played that CT even had more than AD.
That was week 6 against Chicago (BTW, also the game in which AD broke the Vikings single game rushing record - so I think the way AD was used was just fine...).

This is a perfect example of a fan watching the games, convinced he could coach the team better, and criticizing Childress without having and idea what the hell they are talking about.
I believe the proper term is "talking out of your jiggly butt."

Now whose scratching their head looking confused?

Thats what we call some serious snappage.

I keep telling you guys that it is wise to leave Nodack alone and stay on his good side.
Dude is way to smart for me.

(JK
;D NP, excellent post my friend)

NodakPaul
04-04-2008, 09:28 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LMFAO!
That is how you really think it happened, don't you?

You know one of the things that separates coaches from fans?
Fans rely solely on their own perception of what happened to make decisions, while coaches make decisions based on research and real performance.
Here is the break down of the number of carries per game between AD and Taylor:


GameADTaylor
ATL193
DET20--
KC25--
GB128
CHI2022
DAL1210
PHI206
SD309
GB113
OAK--22
NYG--31
DET1514
SF148
CHI205
WAS96
DEN1110


Now go ahead and find me any game where CT had twice the carries over AD.
If you can, I will buy Vikigns tickets to the game of your choice.
But you won't be able to, because CT never had twice the carries.
In fact, there was only one game in which they both played that CT even had more than AD.
That was week 6 against Chicago (BTW, also the game in which AD broke the Vikings single game rushing record - so I think the way AD was used was just fine...).

This is a perfect example of a fan watching the games, convinced he could coach the team better, and criticizing Childress without having and idea what the hell they are talking about.
I believe the proper term is "talking out of your jiggly butt."

Now whose scratching their head looking confused?

Thats what we call some serious snappage.

I keep telling you guys that it is wise to leave Nodack alone and stay on his good side.
Dude is way to smart for me.

(JK
;D NP, excellent post my friend)


Just call them like I see em.


And don't play dumb with me - a lot of us have met you and know that it is just an act.
You cant make six figures sitting on your butt in a government job like you do if you aren't pretty damn smart to begin with... ;D

Marrdro
04-04-2008, 09:30 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LMFAO!
That is how you really think it happened, don't you?

You know one of the things that separates coaches from fans?
Fans rely solely on their own perception of what happened to make decisions, while coaches make decisions based on research and real performance.
Here is the break down of the number of carries per game between AD and Taylor:


GameADTaylor
ATL193
DET20--
KC25--
GB128
CHI2022
DAL1210
PHI206
SD309
GB113
OAK--22
NYG--31
DET1514
SF148
CHI205
WAS96
DEN1110


Now go ahead and find me any game where CT had twice the carries over AD.
If you can, I will buy Vikigns tickets to the game of your choice.
But you won't be able to, because CT never had twice the carries.
In fact, there was only one game in which they both played that CT even had more than AD.
That was week 6 against Chicago (BTW, also the game in which AD broke the Vikings single game rushing record - so I think the way AD was used was just fine...).

This is a perfect example of a fan watching the games, convinced he could coach the team better, and criticizing Childress without having and idea what the hell they are talking about.
I believe the proper term is "talking out of your jiggly butt."

Now whose scratching their head looking confused?

Thats what we call some serious snappage.

I keep telling you guys that it is wise to leave Nodack alone and stay on his good side.
Dude is way to smart for me.

(JK
;D NP, excellent post my friend)


Just call them like I see em.


And don't play dumb with me - a lot of us have met you and know that it is just an act.
You cant make six figures sitting on your butt in a government job like you do if you aren't pretty gol 'darnit smart to begin with... ;D

Dumb luck and the good Lord smiling on a dumb ole hick from northern MN my friend.
Nothing more, nothing less.
;D