At a lovely meal at Buca's downtown for the equally lovely Mrs. Jer's birthday dinner, I was discussing the Vikes with Nato, a friend of the site. The two biggest topics that came up were firing head coach Brad Childress, and cutting WR Troy Williamson. Nato believes strongly that Chilly should have been fired yesterday, but that Williamson deserves one more year. I believe the opposite. As the talks unfolded, I realized that the same rationale I had for keeping Childress was the same he had for keeping Williamson. That's the kind of season it's been for The Purple, and this is what it's doing to its fans.
My argument for keeping Chilly is that he needs the chance to prove he can adapt. I have not been impressed with Chilly whatsoever thus far, and can see Nato's point about there having been few if any signs of hope or progress in year 1 of the Chilly Regime. His "kick-ass" scheme, as he so eloquently called it a couple of days ago, has been anything but. Strib beat writer Kevin Seifert pondered a few days ago whether it's the players' fault for running and throwing short routes on 3rd down that don't produce 1st downs, or if it's "the scheme" that is telling them to do it (as he notes, 43 times this year, or 40% of 3rd downs, the Vikes have completed passes that have come up short of a 1st down)? After watching Jackson on Thursday night, I wonder if it's not the scheme after all. A kid with a CANNON and great mobility sat in the pocket all night doing his best Brad Johnson impression (the first long ball that Williamsons dropped not withstanding. What a throw!) by throwing short and playing it safe. It seems that Chilly's philosophy is to live another day by not taking many chances, yet that strategy has failed despite a very good defense.
These coaches, just like the players, have gigantic egos, so big it's a wonder they can fit them under their headsets. They believe supremely in their "system" or "scheme" or whatever it is, and they want to do things their way to prove just how great a coach they are. Well if you know anything about football, you know the best coaches and players are the ones who make adjustments on the fly. No matter how good your scheme is, other teams will make the proper adjustments to stop it. It appears that other teams early on realized that if you stop Chester Taylor and the Vikes running game, you stop the offense, and that's essentially what's happened.
Nato doesn't buy the idea that Childress can change because he hasn't bothered to change all year. Although I wouldn't disagree, I'd still like to see him run this thing with a competant QB AND/or some receivers who can catch. You get away with a mediocre QB or bad receivers in the NFL, but not both. THe O-line is also adjusting to a new way of blocking (I know zone blocking is different than regular blocking, but couldn't even begin to tell you how. I just know it is), and so I'd like to see them get a full year and another offseason learning how to run it. There's some player big decisions to be made for next season, like quarterback (is Jackson ready to start?), and wide receiver (draft a couple? sign a couple of more?), as well as cornerback on defense (Fred Smoot is as good as gone). Give Childress some upgrades at these positions, and then let's see how he does. If the only ass his offense is kicking is his own, then it's time to find somebody else.
I also worry about firing a coach after only a year because of what's happened in Washington. The Redskins went through like 19 coaches and were overhauling the roster every year. Result? Nothing very positive in that time. A coach in the NFL needs 2 years to get a full group of "his guys" in there to try and do what he wants. Again this is not an endorsement for Childress, because he's been disappointing at best this year, but he should get one more season to prove he can coach.
As for Troy Williamson, another year's not going to do him any good. 10 more years won't do him any good! Williamson wasn't thrown to much at South Carolina, and now we see why. As he showed on that first deep ball on Thursday night, it doesn't matter how fast he can run if he can't make the proper adjustments and catch the damn ball when it comes to him. You can teach a receiver things like how to run routes, how to read a zone and where to settle in, as well learning to catch the ball with your hands instead of trapping it against your body. But what Williamson can't do, which is find the ball and adjust to it and then catch it when it comes to you, can't be taught. You can either do it or you can't. Cut your losses and move on, because there's slower guys who be much more productive with the playing time he's been given...not necessarily on this year's squad, but hopefully there will be next year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You called the Vikings' defense "very good." I beg to differ: their run defense is statistically "good," but they can't stop the pass, even in situations where they know the offense is going to pass. Our linebackers are TERRIBLE against the pass - they have no idea where the middle receivers are on the field - and therefore teams rarely even attempt to run anymore because 1) teams haven't had much success doing so against the Vikes, and 2) teams have had great success passing on them.
That, my friend, is why they have a statistically good run defense.
Post a Comment