Chilly to get Contract Extension

[MOBB DEEP]

Per Adam Shefter

I guess he would say that the courting of Favre and chauferring him from airport to facilty was worth it

[red]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

[mraynrand]

Just look what they're paying chauffeurs these days!

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/80438/49320_vikings_favre_football.jpg

[Sparkey]

Just look what they're paying chauffeurs these days!

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/80438/49320_vikings_favre_football.jpg

And the idiot doesn't even use his seat belt. :shock:

[sharpe1027]

This is by far the best thing to come from the Vikings starting out hot.

[BallHawk]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.

[Smidgeon]

This is by far the best thing to come from the Vikings starting out hot.

Yeah, if I were a Vikings fan, I wouldn't be excited about this. It's like Millen getting an extension. You can count on Chilly to single handedly lose a few games every year. This year he has Favre neutralizing him and allowing the team to play up to its talent.

[Scott Campbell]

I've got to thank Brett for this - I think it really helps the Packers long term.

[mraynrand]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

Favre couldn't get Ray Rhodes a long term deal...

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/news/070813/gary_coleman180.jpg

[Partial]

I don't see why Chilly is such a bad coach. He has built one heck of a team. Think of it this way... he's had less time than TT and built a much better team.

That said, our QB is worse but much younger. They'll take a big step back whenever Favre retires.

[sharpe1027]

I don't see why [Rick Spielmanis] is such a bad [GM]. He has built one heck of a team. Think of it this way... he's had less time than TT and built a much better team.

That said, our QB is worse but much younger. They'll take a big step back whenever Favre retires.

Fixed. I don't see why Rick Spielmanis is a bad GM either (except maybe for Childress' contract extension); however, the topic was about the Viking's head coach. :wink:

[Smidgeon]

I don't see why [Rick Spielmanis] is such a bad [GM]. He has built one heck of a team. Think of it this way... he's had less time than TT and built a much better team.

That said, our QB is worse but much younger. They'll take a big step back whenever Favre retires.

Fixed. I don't see why Rick Spielmanis is a bad GM either (except maybe for Childress' contract extension); however, the topic was about the Viking's head coach. :wink:

+1

Beat me to it.

[Bretsky]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

[Smidgeon]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

Since when? Since he gave Favre the "hands off" approach and allowed him to call audibles?

[Smidgeon]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

The Vikings are a talented team. Have been. They're winning in spite of him, not because of him.

[Bretsky]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

The Vikings are a talented team. Have been. They're winning in spite of him, not because of him.


The Packers are also a talented team; many teams are talented. Not all teams mesh due to sub par coaching among other things

Chillar has taken an array of personalities and talent and allowed them to mesh into a very good team.

Last year he was good enough to lead his team to a divisional title

Homerism and Vikings resentment aside, why is Chillar a bad coach :?:

[sharpe1027]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

Since when? Since he gave Favre the "hands off" approach and allowed him to call audibles?

Probably since he broke his hand and has been stuck on the bench behind Hawk and Barnett.

[Smidgeon]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

The Vikings are a talented team. Have been. They're winning in spite of him, not because of him.


The Packers are also a talented team; many teams are talented. Not all teams mesh due to sub par coaching among other things

Chillar has taken an array of personalities and talent and allowed them to mesh into a very good team.

Last year he was good enough to lead his team to a divisional title

Homerism and Vikings resentment aside, why is Chillar a bad coach :?:

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson). You have Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Favre, a bevy of good linebackers (do I get points for using "bevy" in a sentence?), Hutchinson, McKinnie, etc. They've all been around the block a few times. (But I think the LB corps for both are comparable). So though the Packers are talented too, because they're homegrown, they need a coach more than free agency talent to bring them together. Whereas Pat Williams, Jared Allen, Favre know how to get it done because they've done it time and time again with their teams as well as other teams, they don't need a coach to meld them. And Peterson is a freakin' talent, so though he's young, he's a cut above.

If you want a succinct reason why I think they're a better talent in real life though they may be comparable on paper is that experience. The Packers have young talent that has not been focused into a consistent demonstration.

I would also argue that Favre has done more for team chemistry than Chilly has. Remember when the story broke that there was unrest in the locker room when Favre came on board? A coach who is as good as you think Chilly is wouldn't have even had reports coming out like that. Did the Patriots have reports like that when Moss came in? Doubtful (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the personalities work because Favre is giving them wins Jackson couldn't. Wins cover everything. If they were losing, then you'd have to have a coach who can keep the team together. When they're winning, the best any coach can do is let them stay the course and "don't fix what ain't broke". I think Chillar's smart enough to do that, but I don't think he's anything special.

Last year Peterson was good enough to lead them to a divisional title.

Okay. Homerism hat back on. Where's my kool-aid? I think I was going through withdrawal for a second...

[Bretsky]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

The Vikings are a talented team. Have been. They're winning in spite of him, not because of him.


The Packers are also a talented team; many teams are talented. Not all teams mesh due to sub par coaching among other things

Chillar has taken an array of personalities and talent and allowed them to mesh into a very good team.

Last year he was good enough to lead his team to a divisional title

Homerism and Vikings resentment aside, why is Chillar a bad coach :?:

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson). You have Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Favre, a bevy of good linebackers (do I get points for using "bevy" in a sentence?), Hutchinson, McKinnie, etc. They've all been around the block a few times. (But I think the LB corps for both are comparable). So though the Packers are talented too, because they're homegrown, they need a coach more than free agency talent to bring them together. Whereas Pat Williams, Jared Allen, Favre know how to get it done because they've done it time and time again with their teams as well as other teams, they don't need a coach to meld them. And Peterson is a freakin' talent, so though he's young, he's a cut above.

If you want a succinct reason why I think they're a better talent in real life though they may be comparable on paper is that experience. The Packers have young talent that has not been focused into a consistent demonstration.

I would also argue that Favre has done more for team chemistry than Chilly has. Remember when the story broke that there was unrest in the locker room when Favre came on board? A coach who is as good as you think Chilly is wouldn't have even had reports coming out like that. Did the Patriots have reports like that when Moss came in? Doubtful (correct me if I'm wrong). I think the personalities work because Favre is giving them wins Jackson couldn't. Wins cover everything. If they were losing, then you'd have to have a coach who can keep the team together. When they're winning, the best any coach can do is let them stay the course and "don't fix what ain't broke". I think Chillar's smart enough to do that, but I don't think he's anything special.

Last year Peterson was good enough to lead them to a divisional title.

Okay. Homerism hat back on. Where's my kool-aid? I think I was going through withdrawal for a second...


If your belief is that the Vikings have better talent because their GM has done a superior job gathering it I can buy into that. Last week I broke down position by position between the Vikings and Packers and it was obvious I thought their talent level was better.

But I don't buy that it's easier to get a team to mesh when you have a group of veterans, many of which are characters in their own right. That can be equally hard either way.

And if the Packers do need a superior coach because of the way this team has been put togehter, then I get why many are calling MM not sufficient.

Word leaking out that some Vikings were unhappy about Favre coming in late ? OK; how did the team react to that. How did they recover from that ?
Did it continue ? Did it lead to losses and unraveling ?

Comparing Moss situation to the Favre situation is apples to organges. Moss was there from the start of training camp; Favre basically took all the rough time off and came in a couple weeks before the season. Can't blame a few players for rolling their eyes at how that one went down....but again......did the turmoil continue, and what were the results ?

I won't even attempt to argue the Packers have better talent than the Vikings. But at the same time, you state the Vikings win in spite of Childress.

I'm not sure I understand where that comes from or what details you have provided to support that point...that Childress is a terrible coach.

I'm not saying he's a great coach by any means of the imagination. But I think he's average. And I'm not sure he's not the best coach in our division.

On the other hand, your argument, of how the teams were put together, is a wonderful example of why some are not overly in love with TTT.

[hoosier]

Until this year Chilly sucked. He did not suddenly becomes a good coach. He merely revealed himself to be just competent enough not to ruin a good thing that the Vikings have going on. When Favre gets removed from that equation, I expect that a much greater leadership burden will fall back on Chilly's shoulders, and then we will see what he is worth. Right now he is just riding the wave a la Barry Switzer.

[sharpe1027]

Personally, I think Childress is a victim of always coming across as a douche bag. I think he's got little class so I probably subconsciously rate him lower than he truly is. From what I can tell, most Vikings fans don't even like the guy.

In any event, nobody will convince me that he is a good coach. Only Childress can do that. My current opinion is that he's just good enough to keep his job, but a lot of that is because of the job their GM has been doing.

[gbgary]

chilly is clearly a genius now that mr. fauvera is there. :lol:

[Smidgeon]

But I don't buy that it's easier to get a team to mesh when you have a group of veterans, many of which are characters in their own right. That can be equally hard either way.

I do buy this. I think it's easier for a veteran to be a team player because as they see their careers starting to wind down (ie Favre, Pat Williams), they'll do anything to win the ring (or another). How many times have you heard a player say they'll do anything to get a title. That's what Woodson's playing for. Shoot, it's why Karl Malone and Gary Payton joined the dark side and to an extent why Kevin Garnett went to the Celts. I think because of this mentality, they understand personal accolades are nothing compared to winning the title. Whereas a young player still thinks he'll win five or six during his career. At least, they think they'll get it within their career and they have ten years (or so) to get it.


And if the Packers do need a superior coach because of the way this team has been put together, then I get why many are calling MM not sufficient.

I've made the point before that I like and prefer TT's method of building a team, but to do that, you need a coach who knows how to run a team and who surrounds himself with excellent teachers as assistant coaches. I don't think M3 does either (or did either until he hired Capers and the D-staff). He finally got something right when he got that D-staff. So I think that the two are not compatible because M3 is not good enough to work with what TT provides.


Word leaking out that some Vikings were unhappy about Favre coming in late ? OK; how did the team react to that. How did they recover from that ?
Did it continue ? Did it lead to losses and unraveling ?

It didn't continue. But this is where I attribute it to Favre instead of to Chilly. By reports, they expected Favre to be a diva. They had been hearing reports of how distant he was towards the end in GB and the special treatment he got in NY. How many players said it wouldn't be cool if he dressed in his own room? There have also been reports out there that Favre is more of a teammate this year than he has in the past. In GB the stories were all about how Favre was older than the team and more separate. The receivers didn't get to know him except on the field, and he kept Aaron Rodgers at arm's length. The report out of Minnesota is that he's the consummate teammate, lending his experience in teaching form to not only the WRs but also to the backup QBs. If he had kept himself distant, or if they lost several games, the team would unravel. There would be a spectacle because they were losing. Winning covers a variety of sins.


I'm not sure I understand where that comes from or what details you have provided to support that point...that Childress is a terrible coach.

I'm not saying he's terrible. The Millen comment was hyperbole. But he's not great, and because he's merely adequate, Vikings fans shouldn't be excited. I don't think he loses games for them necessarily, though I've read articles to the contrary over the last couple years. They have the talent to be dominant for several years, especially with Peterson and that defense. But they haven't been dominant and couldn't put it together until an experienced QB came in to run the show.


On the other hand, your argument, of how the teams were put together, is a wonderful example of why some are not overly in love with TTT.

I know why some aren't overly in love with TT. I'm not in love with him, but I think he's good. I'm withdrawing my support of M3 game by game though. To be fair, however, I have recently decided to grant him a one game clemency everytime they win convincingly. So I will not be decreasing my support of him until after the Niners game. He built up a one game credit with me by beating the pants off the Cowboys.


Chillar has turned into a good coach.

So this statement implies that at some point you didn't think Chillar was a good coach. Let me ask you: what has he done to turn that opinion around? Was it the winning? Was it superior game management? Was it that he had to deal with only two new effective pieces of his team in a 40 year old QB and a rookie WR? What made you change your mind?

[Bretsky]

We're actually probably closer to the same view than you would think. Althogh you certainly like TTT more than I do and I like MM a bit more than you do.

Regardling Childress, first off when he was hired he came accross as a real arrogant ass. That first impression probably gave me a negative bias against him. And when he first started I really thought he was in over his head in running a team.

For whatever reason (and talent is part of this), I thought he started doing a better job last year in his playcalling and preparation and my view of him improved. With all the Favre drama, I actually thought there was a chance that squad might blow up early this year and he kept them together. And if Favre is a better teammate than I feel Childress gets some of the credit for doing something MM and Mangini were unable to do.

He's also prepared Darrell Bevell (another guy I thought was over his head) to be a nice offensive coordinator as well.

I did think Childress was a good offensive coordinator for UW Madison
I did think Childress was a very good offensive coordinator for Phily

And I've warmed to him as an average NFL Coach

When I think of teams that have won despite their coach......guys that come to mind are Mike Tice, Wayne Fontes, and Rich Kotite.

Childress IMO is no all star, but IMO he does not hurt what the Vikings GM has built. '

And as great of a job as that GM has done putting that team together, that's what they'd want in a coach.

[pbmax]

McCarthy is an excellent teacher of QBs, I think he has demonstrated that at several stops. The problem is that it wasn't clear he had hired coaches of that same kind of talent prior to Capers and the new staff (minus Kevin Greene, whom the jury still has to be out on).

M3 did hire Robinson the WR coach, and until this year, not a discouraging word was spoken. You might give Bennett the benefit of the doubt, as Jackson developed into a reliable and reasonable third down back and Grant has been solid. he also smoothed out the rough edges of Wynn and had him blocking very well on 3rd down, but no coach can teach someone to stay off IR. Moss has Hawk, Bishop and Chillar to point at, but Hawk was a high pick and Chillar learned the NFL from another team.

On his original staff, Nunn and Sanders seemed to do fine with the line (Kampman, Cole, Jolly and Williams) but Sanders may have been Peter Principled after one year.

Philbin may have suffered that same fate. Campen has only Sitton and maybe Spitz to point at. I wonder if Campen is his own worst enemy here. Perhaps an older hand would have told T2 and M3 that Colledge was always going to be inconsistent and that Barbre would not be able to learn to pass block. At that point, T2 might have had to go with Plan C or D.

It almost makes me ill to think that we might need to wait to see how Lang does (either at LG or RT) and how the eventual new tackles do to fairly judge Campen. But the failure there has been so inconsistent and variable (except for pass pro this year) I am almost sure there is more than one factor.

[Gunakor]

On the other hand, your argument, of how the teams were put together, is a wonderful example of why some are not overly in love with TTT.

The way the Vikings team is/has been built makes it much more likely that they'll win a title sooner than the Packers will. Even the TT supporters should be able to agree with that. But it's all perspective. It's all about what we as fans want.

To me, winning often is more important than winning now. Whether that means we'll start winning often this year or next year or 3 years from now doesn't matter, as long as it happens. I don't want to win 16 games and a trophy this year with a bunch of veteran/journeyman FA's who, once they leave Green Bay, will take all hope of winning consistently with them. I'd rather win with a younger group of players who will be around long enough to create a dynasty. That's where I'm at. I don't want us to win a ring. I want us to become the next dynasty team in the NFL. Odds are slim, but this is how it's done. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at least we're giving ourselves a chance. That's the argument I'd make in support of TT.

Remember, TT only shops for material. He buys the parts, but he's not the mechanic. Now if only we could get a dynasty-caliber head coach in here to actually build the damn thing...

[Smidgeon]

We're actually probably closer to the same view than you would think. Althogh you certainly like TTT more than I do and I like MM a bit more than you do.

You're probably right. We're probably coming to the same basic conclusions from two different launching points. Just for the record, I'm not down on M3. I still like him as a coach. I'm just not as big of a fan as I used to be. I'd take him over Chilly in a heartbeat. I think he has some things going for him that are outstanding, but they seem to be more of offensive coordinator things like QB tutelage, offensive scheming, etc. The parts where he's fallen out of favor with me are in surrounding himself with talented coaches (partially rectified with the D-staff), instead filling his assistant tiers with "good enough" (Sanders, Slocum)...and mostly that's it. But to me, that's a huge thing. To me, the HC is responsible for the team (rallying them after losses, keeping them grounded after wins, etc), the game management (when to throw the third challenge flag, when to use your timeouts, etc), and game planning (which matchup they'll try to exploit, first fifteen plays, focus of game, etc). The position coaches are supposed to be the ones teaching and maximizing the potential. I don't think McCarthy is a waste of space, I just think he's regressed. If he gets back up and regains that ground, then he'll totally be in my good graces again.

[Fritz]

Chillar has turned into a good coach.

The Vikings are a talented team. Have been. They're winning in spite of him, not because of him.


The Packers are also a talented team; many teams are talented. Not all teams mesh due to sub par coaching among other things

Chillar has taken an array of personalities and talent and allowed them to mesh into a very good team.

Last year he was good enough to lead his team to a divisional title

Homerism and Vikings resentment aside, why is Chillar a bad coach :?:

That's easy. For the same reason that McCarthy is a bad coach: he's a goofy-ass looking guy.

Good coaches looke like Mike Tomlin or Bill Cowher or Mike Singletary or Bill Belichek.

[bobblehead]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.

Just like he did for Ray Rhodes and Eric Mangini...hell of a guy.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

[mraynrand]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

[ThunderDan]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Other than Minnesota and Cincinnati, who have we played that is good? WE choked the TB game and that's it. Other than that we would be 6-3 and have lost to an 8-1 team twice and a 7-2 team once. The Packers don't control who they play.

[bobblehead]

On the other hand, your argument, of how the teams were put together, is a wonderful example of why some are not overly in love with TTT.

The way the Vikings team is/has been built makes it much more likely that they'll win a title sooner than the Packers will. Even the TT supporters should be able to agree with that. But it's all perspective. It's all about what we as fans want.

To me, winning often is more important than winning now. Whether that means we'll start winning often this year or next year or 3 years from now doesn't matter, as long as it happens. I don't want to win 16 games and a trophy this year with a bunch of veteran/journeyman FA's who, once they leave Green Bay, will take all hope of winning consistently with them. I'd rather win with a younger group of players who will be around long enough to create a dynasty. That's where I'm at. I don't want us to win a ring. I want us to become the next dynasty team in the NFL. Odds are slim, but this is how it's done. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at least we're giving ourselves a chance. That's the argument I'd make in support of TT.

Remember, TT only shops for material. He buys the parts, but he's not the mechanic. Now if only we could get a dynasty-caliber head coach in here to actually build the damn thing...

Great post Gun, I've said several times that I agree with the TT method 100%, but we have to wait and see if he REALLY has such a great eye for talent or if that is a myth. Early on it looked like his plan came together, but the BF saga let the wheels come off, this season MUST finish strong to say he has what it takes. If not you can start questioning any and everything.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Other than Minnesota and Cincinnati, who have we played that is good? WE choked the TB game and that's it. Other than that we would be 6-3 and have lost to an 8-1 team twice and a 7-2 team once. The Packers don't control who they play.

My last line was meant as sarcasm dan, I agree with you. I tend to say you are as good as your record shows at the end of the season....right now we are a winning football team. Talented and undisciplined.

If you read the whole post again I think the sarcasm is evident.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

[mraynrand]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

I see. Kinda like Belichick without Brady.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

I see. Kinda like Belichick without Brady.

Exactly, but I clearly said a bunch of exceptions. I'm making ONE. BB has a long history in the NFL and he never landed a gig except for the abomination in cleveland. He finally did in NE. Did he grow?? I don't know, he is clearly a good coach at this point (not GREAT imo), but if you think that move he made was anything other than arrogant and in any way a good call I think you are crazy.

[Smidgeon]

First of all, putting homerism aside (:mrgreen:), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Granted, I understand the point you're making about how making exceptions precludes a definitive statement. However, the point I was making was not a definitive statement but instead a trend. The Packers trend towards young, inexperienced talent, and the Vikings trend towards grizzled, experienced talent. The Packers have more young players with a ton of potential that have yet to put it together, and the Vikings have more of the older players who have been putting it together for years.

I was being fair in my assessment to ensure I wasn't glossing over that both teams have exceptions to the trend. For example, Woodson and Harris are the grizzled talent for the Packers who both came from other teams (you could throw Pickett in there too), and Harvin and Peterson are the young talent on the Vikings (although I hedged on Peterson via italics because he's been fulfilling potential since day 1 and he's definitely experienced by now though he's still young-ish for a running back).

When you're making an objective point (ie the Packers have a winning record and thus are what their records says), exceptions are irrelevant. When you're making a subjective point (ie an opinion about talent level), exceptions are not irrelevant, no matter how much you want them to be.

[sheepshead]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

Mine as well sign him...

[PlantPage55]

Even this year, Chilly has made coaching decisions that are baffling. That team is very talented and consistently overcomes them. They have guys like Pat Williams and Jared Allen, who I hate, but at least their players have to answer to them.

I don't feel like Charles Woodson, Al Harris, or Donald Driver fill that role for us. Not that they aren't wonderful players, whom I love to have on our team, but they don't work their veteran magic in the same way that some of the Viking players do.

[Fritz]

I don't understand. All of you breaking out these intelligent, logical arguments in favor of certain coaches, or certain qualities in coaches, when I've already solved the whole thing but no one will respond.

All that matters is how the coach looks. If Vince Lombardi didn't have that crazy gap in his teeth and those hardcore glasses along with the crewcut, he'd have been a lousy coach.

McCarthy was a better coach in 07 because he didn't look like an overfed smurf. Same with Denny Green - he was a pretty good coach til he got too fat and lost his edge.

Mike Singletary is a good coach because he looks like he'll kill you if you fart wrong. Same with Mike Tomlin and Bill Cowher.

[Smidgeon]

I don't understand. All of you breaking out these intelligent, logical arguments in favor of certain coaches, or certain qualities in coaches, when I've already solved the whole thing but no one will respond.

All that matters is how the coach looks. If Vince Lombardi didn't have that crazy gap in his teeth and those hardcore glasses along with the crewcut, he'd have been a lousy coach.

McCarthy was a better coach in 07 because he didn't look like an overfed smurf. Same with Denny Green - he was a pretty good coach til he got too fat and lost his edge.

Mike Singletary is a good coach because he looks like he'll kill you if you fart wrong. Same with Mike Tomlin and Bill Cowher.

Cowher's chin alone could knock someone silly...

[mngolf19]

As a Viking fan:

I don't think Chilly is great, just avg.

Many Vikes fans don't like him due to arrogance when he started. I think he is learning though. And in all facets of coaching. Still has a ways to go though.

Spielman was not here at beginning of Chilly's tenure and is not the sole decider on talent.

"Grizzlled Vets?" "Successful elsewhere?" "Older players?" Jared Allen was 26 when they got him and wouldn't call him a grizzled vet. Shiancoe, none of the above. Hutch, grizzlled and successful but was in his prime so not older or even old at that point. Same with Winfield. Madieu W. also the same. Leber as well. Pat Williams is really the only one I can think of that would fit all 3 of above.

As far as winning in only the short term. Peterson, Loadholt, Herrera, Sullivan, Harvin, Rice, Edwards, Greenway, Henderson, Griffin, Johnson all with 5 or less years of experience/time in NFL. Shiancoe, Leber, McKinnie, Berrian, Kluwe, K. Williams, M. Williams are early in their primes. Most of the "old" guys play with heavy rotation already. So this window is only short if you feel Favre is holding it open by himself. Won last year without him. And who knows how long he plays if this team can continue on.

Chilly makes some boneheaded calls, that's what makes him avg and keeps any arguements open for his head. But he has built a character team(which he said he would do) and has been trending up in success.

I'll take him over many at this point(including M3). And I'll take their path to building over the TT method too. And if your going to say Chilly wins due to Favre, well that's how M3 got his extension isn't it?

[Scott Campbell]

The window is short if you believe the Vikings won't be in town in a couple of years. I'm in MN this week, and the folks I've asked are dead set against using any public money for a stadium - despite the bandwagon year they're having.

[mngolf19]

The window is short if you believe the Vikings won't be in town in a couple of years. I'm in MN this week, and the folks I've asked are dead set against using any public money for a stadium - despite the bandwagon year they're having.

That's a different window. And what are you doing hanging with the cheap bastards?

[Scott Campbell]

The window is short if you believe the Vikings won't be in town in a couple of years. I'm in MN this week, and the folks I've asked are dead set against using any public money for a stadium - despite the bandwagon year they're having.

That's a different window. And what are you doing hanging with the cheap bastards?



Getting stuck with dinner bills. I kid you not.

[Smidgeon]

As a Viking fan:

Obviously. :mrgreen:


So this window is only short if you feel Favre is holding it open by himself. Won last year without him. And who knows how long he plays if this team can continue on.

Won last year without him? They were 3-4 at their bye and didn't start on a real win streak (more than 2 in a row) until week 12. If you think for a moment that kind of winning is comparable to this year's record of 8-1 with their one loss being to the reigning Super Bowl champions, then you're doing more than just sipping the Purple Kool-Aid.

[mngolf19]

As a Viking fan:

Obviously. :mrgreen:


So this window is only short if you feel Favre is holding it open by himself. Won last year without him. And who knows how long he plays if this team can continue on.

Won last year without him? They were 3-4 at their bye and didn't start on a real win streak (more than 2 in a row) until week 12. If you think for a moment that kind of winning is comparable to this year's record of 8-1 with their one loss being to the reigning Super Bowl champions, then you're doing more than just sipping the Purple Kool-Aid.

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

[Smidgeon]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

[mngolf19]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

I say he is part of the continuance of the trend and not the sole reason. Was not trying to imply it was in spite of him.

[Tony Oday]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

I say he is part of the continuance of the trend and not the sole reason. Was not trying to imply it was in spite of him.

with Jump Pass in there you lose at least 3 more games.

[mngolf19]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

I say he is part of the continuance of the trend and not the sole reason. Was not trying to imply it was in spite of him.

with Jump Pass in there you lose at least 3 more games.

Which could still have continued the trend up. We'll never know for sure.

[Smidgeon]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

I say he is part of the continuance of the trend and not the sole reason. Was not trying to imply it was in spite of him.

I think Favre gave the team a large jump that they wouldn't have otherwise taken. Since this is all speculation anyway, I accept your disagreeance as reasonable grounds.

[mngolf19]

Not comparing. It is a trend up though. And without Favre. 10-6 is pretty good then if they were 3-4 at the bye. This season continues the trend and happens to include Favre.

I say your "trend" is because of Favre not in spite of him.

I say he is part of the continuance of the trend and not the sole reason. Was not trying to imply it was in spite of him.

I think Favre gave the team a large jump that they wouldn't have otherwise taken. Since this is all speculation anyway, I accept your disagreeance as reasonable grounds.

And I can agree on that jump as well. They will be favored in every game the rest of the way. And short of significant injury should go at least 13-3. Definitely think that above 12-4 would be above TJack level no question.

[SnakeLH2006]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.
+2..That was just awesome.

[Bretsky]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.
+2..That was just awesome.


WAIT, which is it ?

I thought he was that guy that got coaches fired :?:

[Smidgeon]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.
+2..That was just awesome.


WAIT, which is it ?

I thought he was that guy that got coaches fired :?:

He's the ultimate paradox: He get's coaches a long extension then gets them fired after a couple more years... :mrgreen:

[Scott Campbell]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

+1.
+2..That was just awesome.


WAIT, which is it ?

I thought he was that guy that got coaches fired :?:


Fired and fined.

[MadtownPacker]

He's the ultimate paradox: He get's coaches a long extension then gets them fired after a couple more years... :mrgreen:Yep, look at what he did for McStubby. Got him a big raise after 2007 and now is helping get him canned in 2009.

[SnakeLH2006]

He's the ultimate paradox: He get's coaches a long extension then gets them fired after a couple more years... :mrgreen:Yep, look at what he did for McStubby. Got him a big raise after 2007 and now is helping get him canned in 2009.

+1