All the numbers, statistics, logic, reasoning, long-term game plan and so forth... all of it DOES makes sense, really... it does. But as a fan of any sports team, it feels like forcing yourself to drown submitting to the mindset of losing now for success later.
That "later" is not really guaranteed, so I believe that's the major cause for pause. You never know what players or coaches will be around, injuries can happen on and off the field, even circumstances with opponents can dramatically change... hindsight is the obvious shoulder shrug, but I'm a huge fan of giving it your all everyday, every week, every season. Rather go that route and debate mistakes later.
that's fair.. I think there's lots of decisions that can be made with both an aim at the long term without tanking. Like last year if the Vikings signed cheaper free agents at the beginning of camp rather than the big splash, they might have found some gems and short-term solutions. Drafting the best player available usually ends up in that guy playing at some point even if it's not originally projected that way, ya know? If the Vikings picked a QB this year for the long term, he might end up in the game as a backup keeping you in a playoff race etc.
Like this scenario over the way their trying to rebuild the defense with guy like Patrick Peterson that has a lot of question marks. And then disregarding the offense is just not the way to build a super bowl roster. I just think there was better ways to spend their cap space. With their schedule next season I can't be see anything better than a 8-9 year.
Good article, and I agree with the premise that the constant win-now mentality is causing some unquantifiable amount of mistakes. You've mentioned this before, but it does feel like something with Zimmer is just wound a bit tighter than a lot of other coaches, such that what might be a somewhat stressful situation becomes an absolute pressure cooker when he is in charge. That said, I don't quite buy the implication that if only the Vikings had decided to rebuild in 2020 that they would have automatically been a lock to be able to get Trey Lance or whoever with the 7th overall pick or whatever. There were a LOT of really bad teams this last year - it was the first time in the last decade that at least 9 teams only won 5 games. The Vikings had to get a bit unlucky to get down to the 14th pick this year (3rd most injured defense in the league, losing 3 games they had a 75% chance to win in the closing minutes, etc.), and for as much as I constantly was hoping and praying that this team would fall apart and get a top 5 in the draft Coller was right about this: a team coached by Zimmer and QBed by Cousins just isn't going to lose 11+ games. If they planned to rebuild last year I think the likely scenario would have been that they picked somewhere in that 9, 10, 11, 12 range. And certainly you can trade down from there like the Niners did, but I think that would have been the route. Also, if they ended up with the 12th overall pick with no QB on the roster, that would have been.... unpleasant.
Otherwise, the Athletic had an amazing podcast with Robert Mays and PFFs Seth Galina (actually the second half of the most recent pod) in which they discussed a new defensive shift in the NFL and specifically mentioned how the Vikings might be riding the cutting edge of defense analytics in how they signed (ex-Bama player) Dalvin Tomlinson when paired with the hiring of (ex-Alabama coach) defensive backs coach Karl Scott. Have you heard about this? I would love a deep dive or a podcast with Seth on the issue. I am probably going to butcher the explanation, but basically the Dalvin signing is (potentially) explained by the fact that one element of this shift is that you refocus your DL to be less focused on immediate pressure and more focused on being able to dominate the run, and the end result of this scheme is that your secondary can basically have more freedom to shut down the pass by having more flexibility and dictating the game to the offense rather than the other way around, such that your defense has to spend way less time thinking. Frankly that feels like it is EXACTLY what Zimmer was talking about, and it makes the whole offseason plan fall way more into focus for me, especially because apparently one tenant of this philosophy is that you don't have much need for a second rusher on early downs (but that rather you don't allow the QB to make quick plays such that your single dominant edge rusher can get home in the extra half-second that the QB is taking because he is trying to read what is happening).
Yes, I think Eric Eager mentioned on my show that PFF has found there's more value from players like Tomlinson than previously thought because they can stuff the run with 4 guys and open up the defense to play 2 deep safeties. The Tomlinson signing is interesting because the question would be about the price tag at that position... they're paying a lot for 2 nose tackles. But I'm not sure it falls under the "desperate to win now" category as much as Peterson for $10M does.
Hm, I actually thought it was fine to pay Tomlinson 6M this year and 7.5M next year, but I guess that might depend upon how it plays out.
Otherwise I didn't like the Patrick Peterson signing at all, but Peterson only makes 10M if he gets first team all-pro, and if he somehow miraculously makes first team all-pro then 10M will be a bargain. I think he is "only" projected to make 8M, with a 1M bonus for being first team all-pro and another 1M bonus for both playing 75-90% of snaps while simultaneously the Vikings are a top 5 defense or something like that (which from what I understand you don't expect has basically any chance of happening). I don't think he is worth 8M either, but that is better than paying 10M for him.
It's not so much Tomlinson individually as paying 2 nose tackles. They were an elite run stuffing defense with 1 when Linval was at his best. My Q would be... that the best use of cap space with other pressing needs?
Gotcha gotcha that makes sense, and I buy that hook line and sinker. I guess you can make an argument that this was there was no money that would have improved the defense more if Seth Galina and Robert Mays were to be believed, but you could have had WAY more bang for your buck signing offense such as Blythe (990K), Zeitler (4M cap hit this year), Thuney (4.5M this year), one of the remaining KC OTs, or even something crazy like Trent Williams (only 8M this year before things get dumb down the road), or going WR for someone noteworthy like Curtis Samuel or someone dependable like Emmanuel Sanders.
Right. And when Tomlinson only plays 600 snaps, there's a point there about value too. A good interior OL will give you 1000 snaps. Even a WR3 if he's used a little more with Rudolph gone would have been in the same ballpark and given you the most valuable thing you can have, which is passing success. I like Tomlinson a lot as a player. He's terrific. I'll do a film piece on him at some point soon. He's good. It's just the dollars considering what they've already spent to stop the run vs. where else it could have been spent
From the outside looking in, it appears to me at least that the thinking of this franchise has never been the same since acquiring Kirk Cousins. Once they weren't able to achieve success during his first contract, I would argue that they should have returned to a much more patient, thoughtful approach to personnel acquisition.
But instead it's felt like they've been chasing 2017 ever since with no real focus on anything beyond what's directly in front of them. Your example of not trading Reiff for potentially significant compensation is a perfect example and this is a potentially disastrous way to run a franchise.
Everything about this FA period has felt reactionary and emotional. The one potentially long term, valuable piece they've acquired (Tomlinson) is a poor fit for this defense and a misuse of cap space. I hate saying this when it appears that Tomlinson is a wonderful teammate and human being, but in light of his skill-set, the realities of the 3 tech in the modern NFL and the complete absence of the left side of the o-line, it's difficult to argue against that assertion.
That being said, I can't believe I'm saying this but I am going to come to Zimmer's defense on those anonymous NFL exec comments about Zimmer last week. Specifically this bit:
“Zimmer’s first mistake was saying he’d never had a bad defense,” an exec told Sando. “His second mistake was going for the quick fix in free agency with risky vets instead of coaching those young guys they brought in. They run that complex scheme and when it doesn’t work, it’s the execution, so they sign vets.”
The move to bring in Peterson and Alexander is exactly what they should have done last year instead of leaving a couple of rookies with no training camp on literal islands. There is NOTHING wrong with adding quality depth at the 3rd or 4th most important position in football, especially when the price is right (in the case of Alexander) or there's plenty of flexibility (in the case of Peterson's 1 year deal). This is to say nothing of the positive impact of having a couple of vets who can mentor Dantzler and Gladney.
Otherwise, that's as much positive as I can say about Zimmer for one comment. Sam/Matthew, you raise a fascinating hypothetical on how Zim/Spielman would have approached this offseason if they had 5-10 year terms. As myself and many others have mentioned in the past, it would be absolutely fascinating to know the conversations between Zim/Spielman and the Wilfs. From the outside looking in, it appears that Zim/Spielman are under tremendous pressure by the Wilfs to win this year. But I'm not so sure that this isn't a case of Zimmer holding enough cards to allow his impulsivity to run wild, especially after an embarrassing 2020 season.
I really need to remember to put my byline on the articles now haha.
Strongly agree with your point about bringing in veteran corners last year. They were available late into the offseason. I think that executive's point is that trying to fix a ton of problems with free agent signings doesn't always work when you're trying to do it in one offseason.
All the numbers, statistics, logic, reasoning, long-term game plan and so forth... all of it DOES makes sense, really... it does. But as a fan of any sports team, it feels like forcing yourself to drown submitting to the mindset of losing now for success later.
That "later" is not really guaranteed, so I believe that's the major cause for pause. You never know what players or coaches will be around, injuries can happen on and off the field, even circumstances with opponents can dramatically change... hindsight is the obvious shoulder shrug, but I'm a huge fan of giving it your all everyday, every week, every season. Rather go that route and debate mistakes later.
that's fair.. I think there's lots of decisions that can be made with both an aim at the long term without tanking. Like last year if the Vikings signed cheaper free agents at the beginning of camp rather than the big splash, they might have found some gems and short-term solutions. Drafting the best player available usually ends up in that guy playing at some point even if it's not originally projected that way, ya know? If the Vikings picked a QB this year for the long term, he might end up in the game as a backup keeping you in a playoff race etc.
Like this scenario over the way their trying to rebuild the defense with guy like Patrick Peterson that has a lot of question marks. And then disregarding the offense is just not the way to build a super bowl roster. I just think there was better ways to spend their cap space. With their schedule next season I can't be see anything better than a 8-9 year.
Good article, and I agree with the premise that the constant win-now mentality is causing some unquantifiable amount of mistakes. You've mentioned this before, but it does feel like something with Zimmer is just wound a bit tighter than a lot of other coaches, such that what might be a somewhat stressful situation becomes an absolute pressure cooker when he is in charge. That said, I don't quite buy the implication that if only the Vikings had decided to rebuild in 2020 that they would have automatically been a lock to be able to get Trey Lance or whoever with the 7th overall pick or whatever. There were a LOT of really bad teams this last year - it was the first time in the last decade that at least 9 teams only won 5 games. The Vikings had to get a bit unlucky to get down to the 14th pick this year (3rd most injured defense in the league, losing 3 games they had a 75% chance to win in the closing minutes, etc.), and for as much as I constantly was hoping and praying that this team would fall apart and get a top 5 in the draft Coller was right about this: a team coached by Zimmer and QBed by Cousins just isn't going to lose 11+ games. If they planned to rebuild last year I think the likely scenario would have been that they picked somewhere in that 9, 10, 11, 12 range. And certainly you can trade down from there like the Niners did, but I think that would have been the route. Also, if they ended up with the 12th overall pick with no QB on the roster, that would have been.... unpleasant.
Otherwise, the Athletic had an amazing podcast with Robert Mays and PFFs Seth Galina (actually the second half of the most recent pod) in which they discussed a new defensive shift in the NFL and specifically mentioned how the Vikings might be riding the cutting edge of defense analytics in how they signed (ex-Bama player) Dalvin Tomlinson when paired with the hiring of (ex-Alabama coach) defensive backs coach Karl Scott. Have you heard about this? I would love a deep dive or a podcast with Seth on the issue. I am probably going to butcher the explanation, but basically the Dalvin signing is (potentially) explained by the fact that one element of this shift is that you refocus your DL to be less focused on immediate pressure and more focused on being able to dominate the run, and the end result of this scheme is that your secondary can basically have more freedom to shut down the pass by having more flexibility and dictating the game to the offense rather than the other way around, such that your defense has to spend way less time thinking. Frankly that feels like it is EXACTLY what Zimmer was talking about, and it makes the whole offseason plan fall way more into focus for me, especially because apparently one tenant of this philosophy is that you don't have much need for a second rusher on early downs (but that rather you don't allow the QB to make quick plays such that your single dominant edge rusher can get home in the extra half-second that the QB is taking because he is trying to read what is happening).
Yes, I think Eric Eager mentioned on my show that PFF has found there's more value from players like Tomlinson than previously thought because they can stuff the run with 4 guys and open up the defense to play 2 deep safeties. The Tomlinson signing is interesting because the question would be about the price tag at that position... they're paying a lot for 2 nose tackles. But I'm not sure it falls under the "desperate to win now" category as much as Peterson for $10M does.
Hm, I actually thought it was fine to pay Tomlinson 6M this year and 7.5M next year, but I guess that might depend upon how it plays out.
Otherwise I didn't like the Patrick Peterson signing at all, but Peterson only makes 10M if he gets first team all-pro, and if he somehow miraculously makes first team all-pro then 10M will be a bargain. I think he is "only" projected to make 8M, with a 1M bonus for being first team all-pro and another 1M bonus for both playing 75-90% of snaps while simultaneously the Vikings are a top 5 defense or something like that (which from what I understand you don't expect has basically any chance of happening). I don't think he is worth 8M either, but that is better than paying 10M for him.
It's not so much Tomlinson individually as paying 2 nose tackles. They were an elite run stuffing defense with 1 when Linval was at his best. My Q would be... that the best use of cap space with other pressing needs?
Gotcha gotcha that makes sense, and I buy that hook line and sinker. I guess you can make an argument that this was there was no money that would have improved the defense more if Seth Galina and Robert Mays were to be believed, but you could have had WAY more bang for your buck signing offense such as Blythe (990K), Zeitler (4M cap hit this year), Thuney (4.5M this year), one of the remaining KC OTs, or even something crazy like Trent Williams (only 8M this year before things get dumb down the road), or going WR for someone noteworthy like Curtis Samuel or someone dependable like Emmanuel Sanders.
Right. And when Tomlinson only plays 600 snaps, there's a point there about value too. A good interior OL will give you 1000 snaps. Even a WR3 if he's used a little more with Rudolph gone would have been in the same ballpark and given you the most valuable thing you can have, which is passing success. I like Tomlinson a lot as a player. He's terrific. I'll do a film piece on him at some point soon. He's good. It's just the dollars considering what they've already spent to stop the run vs. where else it could have been spent
A very timely subject, Sam/Matthew.
From the outside looking in, it appears to me at least that the thinking of this franchise has never been the same since acquiring Kirk Cousins. Once they weren't able to achieve success during his first contract, I would argue that they should have returned to a much more patient, thoughtful approach to personnel acquisition.
But instead it's felt like they've been chasing 2017 ever since with no real focus on anything beyond what's directly in front of them. Your example of not trading Reiff for potentially significant compensation is a perfect example and this is a potentially disastrous way to run a franchise.
Everything about this FA period has felt reactionary and emotional. The one potentially long term, valuable piece they've acquired (Tomlinson) is a poor fit for this defense and a misuse of cap space. I hate saying this when it appears that Tomlinson is a wonderful teammate and human being, but in light of his skill-set, the realities of the 3 tech in the modern NFL and the complete absence of the left side of the o-line, it's difficult to argue against that assertion.
That being said, I can't believe I'm saying this but I am going to come to Zimmer's defense on those anonymous NFL exec comments about Zimmer last week. Specifically this bit:
“Zimmer’s first mistake was saying he’d never had a bad defense,” an exec told Sando. “His second mistake was going for the quick fix in free agency with risky vets instead of coaching those young guys they brought in. They run that complex scheme and when it doesn’t work, it’s the execution, so they sign vets.”
The move to bring in Peterson and Alexander is exactly what they should have done last year instead of leaving a couple of rookies with no training camp on literal islands. There is NOTHING wrong with adding quality depth at the 3rd or 4th most important position in football, especially when the price is right (in the case of Alexander) or there's plenty of flexibility (in the case of Peterson's 1 year deal). This is to say nothing of the positive impact of having a couple of vets who can mentor Dantzler and Gladney.
Otherwise, that's as much positive as I can say about Zimmer for one comment. Sam/Matthew, you raise a fascinating hypothetical on how Zim/Spielman would have approached this offseason if they had 5-10 year terms. As myself and many others have mentioned in the past, it would be absolutely fascinating to know the conversations between Zim/Spielman and the Wilfs. From the outside looking in, it appears that Zim/Spielman are under tremendous pressure by the Wilfs to win this year. But I'm not so sure that this isn't a case of Zimmer holding enough cards to allow his impulsivity to run wild, especially after an embarrassing 2020 season.
I really need to remember to put my byline on the articles now haha.
Strongly agree with your point about bringing in veteran corners last year. They were available late into the offseason. I think that executive's point is that trying to fix a ton of problems with free agent signings doesn't always work when you're trying to do it in one offseason.