At the beginning of the season, the Vikings faced an ugly conundrum. The problem was how the team could craft a three-deep quarterback rotation from Brad Johnson, rookie Tarvaris Jackson, and two quarterbacks whom nobody any longer believed capable of performing in the NFL. After considering retaining only two quarterbacks, with Jackson as the backup--an unthinkable move even in the world that is that of Vikings' head coach Brad Childress--the Vikings made their decision. Out were J.T. O'Sullivan and Mike McMahon, in was Brookes Bollinger as backup to starter Brad Johnson.
At the time, the decision to sign Bollinger looked savvy given the dearth of anywhere near proven quarterbacking talent on the free-agent market. As the season began I wrote:
"For all intents and purposes, the Vikings signed Bollinger to take the place of Mike McMahon and J.T. O'Sullivan. During his unremarkable run in the NFL, McMahon has posted some fairly jaundiced numbers, including a 44.5% career completion percentage, a 55.1 career passer rating, and 15 TDs to 21 INTs.
O'Sullivan's stats look gaudy in comparison but only because O'Sullivan has no career stats. That's because, in five NFL seasons, O'Sullivan has yet to throw a single regular- or post-season pass.
Bollinger easily bests both quarterbacks in these categories with 2005 numbers, alone, including 1558 yards passing with a 56.4% completion percentage, a 72.9 passer rating, and 7 TDs to 6 INTs. But, even without the benefit of competing against McMahon and O'Sullivan, Bollinger's numbers look pretty good.
Bollinger is not Elway reincarnated, but he is much more palatable as a 26-year-old backup than are McMahon or O'Sullivan. And that makes his signing, serrindipitous or not, a solid one."
The theory, of course, was that Bollinger would prove capable if Johnson ever became injured. Johnson's relative health has meant that Bollinger has yet to play for the Vikings. But, with Johnson's poor play now the equivalent of playing with an injured quarterback, the time has arrived to test Bollinger's worth to the team.
Bollinger brings two things to the Vikings that neither Johnson nor Jackson can match at this point in their respective careers. Compared to Johnson, Bollinger is a gazelle, able to evade 400 pound linemen the way a 38-year-old Johnson once merely dreamed he could.
And while Bollinger does not possess the speed of the clearly quicker and faster Jackson, he has demonstrated an ability to pass with accuracy in the NFL. Jackson has yet to do that on a consistent basis even in practice, still showing too late of a release and not yet even at the stage of over-compensating by releasing too early. Arm strength is no problem for Jackson, but accuracy is not currently a strength. And with the Vikings' modest receiving corps, that makes the somewhat experienced Bollinger the better fit at this point of the season.
With Bollinger under center, the Vikings would have the luxury of rolling out the quarterback and even sticking with Childress' bizarre fixation with the no shotgun offense. Even a glimmer of foot speed would make the Vikings' offensive line look considerably better, much the way a hint of quarterback mobility would put pressure on opposing teams to play the pass equal to the run.
Jackson, meanwhile, is at least one more full season from being NFL ready. And for Vikings' fans who believe that inserting Jackson now will only facilitate his NFL progression, there are ominous graveyards across the NFL to suggest otherwise. For every Peyton Manning there are players such as Ryan Leaf, Kyle Orton, Cade McKnown, Alex Smith, and even Eli Manning. And consider, as well, that with veterans at several key positions, the Vikings are not exactly in a position to begin re-building around an inexperienced, former I-AA quarterback.
For Childress and this version of the Minnesota Vikings, any extant window of opportunity is fast closing and a change at quarterback, if one is to be made, calls for at least modest experience at the position. If, by this time next year, that solution fails, more wholesale rebuilding likely will be in order. And Vikings' fans will then have the uneviable experience of looking forward to having yet another expansion team win the Super Bowl before they take home the Lombardi Trophy.
Up Next: Arizona Down?
Friday, November 24, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Well Past Time to Change Shoe
After yet another telling and stale loss attributable to inept offensive playcalling and execution, Minnesota Vikings' head coach Brad Childress was asked whether now was the time to make changes. His response, predictably, was that the offense was just a play or two away from being a very good offense.
Stop me if you've heard that line before.
Better yet, let me stop myself. Not only have Vikings' fans heard that line numerous times over the past five seasons, they have heard that line numerous times this year. And, as we near the conclusion of year five of the Vikings' three-year pledge to return the team to Super Bowl contention, year one of the sorry plan suddenly looks more promising than does the present.
What's worse than the play on the field, however, is the coaching at the helm. Childress' comment that he intended to stand pat with a lineup filled with players that he believes can "get it done," misapprehends the thrust of the question which is whether Chilly intends to change things from either the personnel side or the coaching side to give the Vikings their best opportunity to win.
It's one thing to lose without talent. It's quite another to take a 9-7 team that, in 2005, arguably played a tougher schedule and had less physical talent at key positions and to turn that team into a losing team. That speaks volumes about the coaching. The Vikings are losing not because they do not have the ability to win, but because they are encumbered with an egomaniacal and myopic coach intent on shoving square pegs into smaller round holes and professing ignorance--behind the security of a five-year contract--as to why the endeavor continues to fail.
Childress is intent on running a version of the West Coast offense never before seen--a version that makes the 49er's version of West Coast offense look more like the old Houston Oilers' four-receiver offense or the Don Coryell offenses in San Diego.
Chilly, of course, has a rejoinder, if not a very satisfactory one. Contrary to his pre-season self-congratulations on putting this team together, Childress now contends that some of his players don't fit the system that he is running. Yet, despite this insistance, Chilly insists on running that system rather than modifying the system to meet the personnel at his avail.
It should be no surprise that Chilly is putting the lion's share of the blame for his team's poor performance in his system on his players, a la Glen Mason. After all, that's been his M.O. since the current losing skid began.
Three weeks ago, Brad Johnson was the culprit. Last week, Childress offered up that rookie offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell called a few plays. The insinuation was that those were the critical plays--the plays that cost the Vikings a victory in spite of the genius of Chilly's calls. Childress refused to elaborate, pretending to stand by his coordinator who is too beholden to Childress to be able to note that Childress retains full control over the final playcalling or that Childress continues to call one of three plays--Chester Taylor off tackle left, Johnson two-yard pass right, or duck to opposing safety.
Yesterday, Chilly outdid himself, suggesting that the defense was as culpable in the loss as was the Vikings' pathetic offensive scheme. "Those guys have a few things to improve on as well," Chilly commented, apparently intent on fomenting a division between the offense and defense that he claims does not currently exist.
Ultimately, Chilly might be right about some things. He might be right that he doesn't have the personnel for his system (whatever that is). He might also be right that the offense will improve, especially if his view of what constitutes improvement is the ability to find the endzone from first and goal at the three. And he might be right that the defense, which continues to play far too soft in the passing game, has sizeable room for improvement.
In the final analysis, however, it is utter folly to suggest that this Vikings' team is failing for the reasons that Chilly cites. The team is failing because it continues to lead the league in fewest points per yard gained, because it continues to be among the league leaders in three and outs, because the offense continues to sputter after the opening drive, and because the offensive playcalling does not work. And it's the head coach's job to make it work.
Mike Tice did it with less. Are we to buy that a self-proclaimed offensive guru is unable to do so with more against even lesser comptettition? If so, then surely the end is nigh.
Up Next: A View From India
Stop me if you've heard that line before.
Better yet, let me stop myself. Not only have Vikings' fans heard that line numerous times over the past five seasons, they have heard that line numerous times this year. And, as we near the conclusion of year five of the Vikings' three-year pledge to return the team to Super Bowl contention, year one of the sorry plan suddenly looks more promising than does the present.
What's worse than the play on the field, however, is the coaching at the helm. Childress' comment that he intended to stand pat with a lineup filled with players that he believes can "get it done," misapprehends the thrust of the question which is whether Chilly intends to change things from either the personnel side or the coaching side to give the Vikings their best opportunity to win.
It's one thing to lose without talent. It's quite another to take a 9-7 team that, in 2005, arguably played a tougher schedule and had less physical talent at key positions and to turn that team into a losing team. That speaks volumes about the coaching. The Vikings are losing not because they do not have the ability to win, but because they are encumbered with an egomaniacal and myopic coach intent on shoving square pegs into smaller round holes and professing ignorance--behind the security of a five-year contract--as to why the endeavor continues to fail.
Childress is intent on running a version of the West Coast offense never before seen--a version that makes the 49er's version of West Coast offense look more like the old Houston Oilers' four-receiver offense or the Don Coryell offenses in San Diego.
Chilly, of course, has a rejoinder, if not a very satisfactory one. Contrary to his pre-season self-congratulations on putting this team together, Childress now contends that some of his players don't fit the system that he is running. Yet, despite this insistance, Chilly insists on running that system rather than modifying the system to meet the personnel at his avail.
It should be no surprise that Chilly is putting the lion's share of the blame for his team's poor performance in his system on his players, a la Glen Mason. After all, that's been his M.O. since the current losing skid began.
Three weeks ago, Brad Johnson was the culprit. Last week, Childress offered up that rookie offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell called a few plays. The insinuation was that those were the critical plays--the plays that cost the Vikings a victory in spite of the genius of Chilly's calls. Childress refused to elaborate, pretending to stand by his coordinator who is too beholden to Childress to be able to note that Childress retains full control over the final playcalling or that Childress continues to call one of three plays--Chester Taylor off tackle left, Johnson two-yard pass right, or duck to opposing safety.
Yesterday, Chilly outdid himself, suggesting that the defense was as culpable in the loss as was the Vikings' pathetic offensive scheme. "Those guys have a few things to improve on as well," Chilly commented, apparently intent on fomenting a division between the offense and defense that he claims does not currently exist.
Ultimately, Chilly might be right about some things. He might be right that he doesn't have the personnel for his system (whatever that is). He might also be right that the offense will improve, especially if his view of what constitutes improvement is the ability to find the endzone from first and goal at the three. And he might be right that the defense, which continues to play far too soft in the passing game, has sizeable room for improvement.
In the final analysis, however, it is utter folly to suggest that this Vikings' team is failing for the reasons that Chilly cites. The team is failing because it continues to lead the league in fewest points per yard gained, because it continues to be among the league leaders in three and outs, because the offense continues to sputter after the opening drive, and because the offensive playcalling does not work. And it's the head coach's job to make it work.
Mike Tice did it with less. Are we to buy that a self-proclaimed offensive guru is unable to do so with more against even lesser comptettition? If so, then surely the end is nigh.
Up Next: A View From India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)