Recent Articles

Frazier Gleam

Losing: Lowered Expectations
Running Myth
Weakest Qualifer Playoff Format
No Peyton Not MVP
Half Offense Out
Storm Signals
Inside Out
Spoiled Rotten
Instinct: More than Talent
Vacuum Rein In
Report Card Detroit
Super Charge AD
Weighted QB Rating
Game Plan


Additional Minnesota Viking Commentary

Today's education system measures less than 10 parameters that can lead an individual to success in ones life.  The problem is that our established systems doesn't recognize that there actually well over 100 actual measurable parameters.  This might explain why some that are regarded as average, to less than average, actually succeed in the long term. 

Regardless of what you might think, Brad Childress has had a wildly successful career coaching football.  Since no one is perfect, and Chilly appears to exhibit humbleness within his character, he would probably be the first to admit that he is no Einstein.  Admitting so wouldn't detract from his presence as he clearly has razor sharp claws.  What is clear is that he possesses several discernable traits, both positive and negative, that are without question & are without debate apparent.

For instance, while in Philadelphia, his team was labeled as a team that couldn't run the ball.  This might explain his selection of AD in terms other than he'll be known as the greatest back in the history of the NFL.  This label was clearly a stigma that was adhered to his team ... the obvious flaw to that argument was that  his offense was widely successful.  To put this in perspective, just consider the number of his championship game appearances.  Unfair or not, the applied stigma was a reality.  To go one step further, let's consider last years performance.  In what percentage of plays did we end up with from 1 to negative yards per each attempt.

In the art of war, what this exposes in Brad's mind is his perceived weakness.  In other words, the reality is that there is no true weakness ... however, it is a political weakness within his mind nonetheless.  So could last years performances be a product of Brad applying his stubborn-will within the weakly game plan to fight the foe of political gain, rather than to exploit the weakness of his weakly opponent ... to somehow win at the war of politics?  That is unclear.  Now ask yourself a question ... do you ever get the feeling that Brads team is fighting against the barriers that exist within his own mind rather than the weaknesses within his opponents?  This might sound ridiculous but we all do such things all the time.

Let me put this in more simplistic terms.  In our minds we develop axioms that we become reliant on.  On first down we run the ball.  Watch this ... he's going to run this right into a brick wall.  Why, well even if we only get 1 yard it's better than 2nd & 10 on an incomplete pass.   Bill Walsh never did this ... ever!  At the end of the game, we have to run the ball to keep the clock running rather than passing for a first down that puts it all out of reach.  That is like saying I didn't make the phone call because I didn't want to pay the long distance charge but the reality is that because you didn't make that call you lost the sale.

Brad you have your contract extension ... it's time to get a little crazy out there.  What's a straight jacket between friends?  

It's been many years since Buddy Ryan coached in this league, but he reaches to us well beyond the years.  That's the influence of his genius as it applies to defense or maybe its combined with the influence of his two sons.  What I've come to understand is that Buddy was an enigma.  What I also clearly understood about Buddy was that in many of his discernable  traits, he was less than average in many of the 100+ but not in what counts as a defensive coordinator.  He made it clear that he became dependent upon your predictabilities.  Buddy depended on its outcome.  In facing Bill Walsh ... who would win the war?  My guess is the answer would lie within Bill Walsh's calculated unpredictability.  

For example, what does the draft tell us about the predictability of Childress's mind and how he perceives the battle field?  What does the loss of Chester Taylor tell us?  How do we apply this to the concepts of The Art of War.    For example, does the addition of Toby Gerhart indicate Childress's propensity toward the battle plan of incessant attrition, by pounding it up the gut for no gain, to continue in his fight toward his war of illusion.  Maybe so.  My hope is that Gerhart/Taylor are an indication that the money man Peterson is going to be on the field on 3rd downs because if he's not the target, he's one hell of a decoy, as more than one have to follow the wickedness of his slash & burn mentality.    

Which brings us to the wild card ... Darrell Bevell ... AKA ... V-V, because there is a missing "v" from Bevell's last name that would make it all balanced.  At first, watching our offense sputter under T-Jack, I thought this kid just didn't have what it took in the league of "Not For Long".  Watching last year ... well let's just say that if they don't lock this kid up with a long term deal dam quick, were going to let another Super Bowl coach get away from us.  What is clear and what is evident is that Childress needs to clearly understand the prime axiom of the "Art of War", and that is decentralized decision making.  You cannot battle plan V-V.  Of the 100+ factors, all seems normal with this guy, but there is one specific factor that is absolutely insane.  There is not much that separates true genius from the lament of the insane.  V-V in control understanding that they cannot ignore what Childress intends to do regardless of whether he gets to do it or not.           

In the games in which we ran the Finger, we were wildly successful, where the actual play that was run was almost always widely unsuccessful.  It was a pisser to watch.  In other word, in running that play we lost the battle (the play), but in doing so we won the war (the game).  Why?  It was due in part to unpredictability.  What was so disturbing was in it's lack of success in running those plays as if to say it was an afterthought rather a primary tool leading toward the focal point ... the turning point.  It's not that the players didn't understand the order ... it is that they aren't putting any real stock into the belief that there is anything behind that order.  We do this and we get that elusive swagger ... the thing that no one else has.  You cannot put a value on the unattainable.  Getting into the zone ... it doesn't happen very often but we become slaves to attaining it.  

In regard to Adrian Peterson we must cease and desist from making him carry & sleep with the football or have him carry around a weighted ball.  No one gets to look into Jim Brown's eyes ... and then gets belittled by anyone.  Period.  Debate and say anything that you want but there is only one on top of that heap.  Just understand that AD doesn't need to be treated like a fool but rather he needs to understand that he is being fooled.  Once he, and everyone that he comes in contact with, clearly understands that difference, let anyone come to his table ... as no ball shall dance.      

Which brings me to my final point, back to the curse of Super Bowl IV.  There is much to be said about what was done, what should of been done, and what happened on that day but there is one undeniable fact.  On that day we were hit with an unpredicted element.  I would of said unpredictable, like the fumbled kickoff, except much of that day was planned and executed.  What we had to offer on that day was predictable and the wonton acts were subdued.  The perfect recipe for disaster.

The Viking Ghost Writer
Date: July 19, 2010

Hit Counter