I've heard Viking fans cite the '05 Vikes' 9-7 record and the '06 Vikes 6-10 record as clear evidence that Brad Childress is responsible for the Vikings' decline in wins. That's easy to say if you are unwilling to look closer. But let's look at the '05 Vikes more closely to see if Childress is responsible for a 3-game regression.
The 2005 Vikings
W1: 33-16 v. Saints
This was a shellacking of a team that was unstable after Hurricane Katrina.
W2: 23-20 v. Packers
The Vikes won on a last second field goal. Koren Robinson had a key kick return late in the game that made a desperation field goal attempt possible.
W3: 27-14 v. Lions
The Vikes always beat the Lions
W4: 24-21 v. Giants
The Vikes didn't score an offensive TD: they won on an interception return by Darren Sharper, a punt return by Mewelde Moore, and a kick return by Koren Robinson.
W5: 20-17 @ Packers
The Vikes won on a last-second field goal; Koren Robinson had the key reception to set up the game winning field goal.
w6: 24-12 v. Browns
The Browns were bad.
w7: 21-16 @ Lions
The Vikes could have blown this game late but didn't. They started the game with an 80 yard TD pass to Koren Robinson.
w8: 27-13 v. Rams
Ryan Fitzpatrick started at quarterback for the Rams.
w9: 34-10 v. Bears
Having clinched everything, the Bears rested their starters and did not even try to win this game.
So, what do you see in the 9-7 team coached by Mike Tice? In four of the Viking wins, Koren Robinson was a difference maker--his big plays directly helped the Vikes to victory. It's not that Robinson was a legendary performer, but his big plays were x-factors responsible for at least three and possibly four Viking wins; take Robinson off the '05 Vikes, and I believe they are a 6-10 team. And, as everybody knows, Robinson was not on the '06 Viking team that went 6-10.
But look further. The Vikes got an early win against a Saints team in turmoil and playing its third consecutive road game. They also got a win against a Ram team starting a third-string rookie QB. They also got a week 17 win against a Bear team that was playing all of its backups.
The '05 Vikings were a clinched team resting its starters away from being an 8-8 team. They were a few plays away from being a 6-10 team. They were one player away from being a 5-11 team. They were a few scheduling breaks away from being a 4-12 team.
We can romanticize the '05 Vikes as a gutty 9-7 team, but the reality is that the team simply wasn't that good. Let's not forget, the '05 Vikings also lost some games by scores like 37-8, 30-10, 28-3, 38-13, and 18-3. They won close games against bad teams and got absolutely slaughtered against good teams.
So, can you really blame Brad Childress for turning a 9-7 team into a 6-10 team? I don't believe you can. Not when the '05 Vikings were worse than their record indicated (through luck more than Mike Tice's coaching). Not when the '06 Vikes played without '05 gamebreaker Koren Robinson. Not when the team Childress took over was also the team that was blown out by nearly every decent opponent the prior year. Not when the '06 Vikes both won and lost some freaky close games (take away Chester Taylor's fumbles in the fourth quarter against Chicago and Miami, and the 2006 Vikings are very likely an 8-8 team. Can you possibly blame Brad Childress for those two Chester Taylor fumbles?).
Of course wins and losses are all that matters. And if all you look at is 9 versus 6, it looks like Brad Childress led the Vikings to a decline in 2006. But a closer look reveals that's simply not true. The Vikings may or may not improve in 2007, but Brad Childress is not the reason the Vikings fell from 9 to 6 wins between '05 and '06. The Vikes fell from 9 to 6 wins because of the loss of Koren Robinson, a few scheduling quirks, a few plays, a few fumbles, and a few unlucky breaks.
Excellent examination, PV.
ReplyDeleteanother subtle examination of why the green bay packers will win the division. koren robinson! koren robinson! i mean. er. goes vikes.
ReplyDeleterk
Well put, I wouldn't have thought of the records like that. Tell ya' what, I still don't necessarily like Childress, but the point you made is well taken, and changed my view on the Vikings over those two seasons. Go Vikings this year, our coach isn't being the CIA with the media right now, and the players seem overall just happy to forget last year so it hopefully will go well. Rice, Williamson, and Wade will all do well for us with McMullen, Allison and some other WR's doing a acceptable job on keeping the offense going.
ReplyDeleteTarvaris jackson is going to be exciting this year, he will be a rookie at times, but his talents will show I think.
Horse puckey. Childress installed a new offence which was terrible and predictable. The passsing game was non existent due in some measure to his refusal to let Johnson call audibles; but he did let Taylor set a new season record for carries. Even he admitted somewhat grugingly that the play calling needs to be different this year. To suggest Koren Robinson was responsible for the wins is ridiculous; no one player wins a game. I'm not a big Tice fan but Childress doesn't inspire confidence; just ask Winfield. This year Childress has total control but I doubt the team will be better than 7-9. Next year you will be calling for Childress' head and so will we all.
ReplyDeleteThe 2005 team scored 306 points; the 2006 team scored 282 points (I think the '05 and '06 teams had a similar number of defensive or special teams TDs--around 5-6).
ReplyDeleteThe 2005 offense scored 28 TDs; the 2005 offense scored 25 TDs.
So yes--the Viking offense declined between 2005 and 2006. They declined by around 1.5 ppg and by 3 TDs in 16 games.
So how atrocious is Childress's offense? He inherited a lousy offense, and the offense got slightly lousier in the first year of a new system (and with no quality WRs to throw to).
I didn't say Koren Robinson alone won games. However, he was the x-factor pushing the team over the top in at least three games. If he doesn't get a good kick return against the Packers, the game goes to OT. If he doesn't return a kick for a TD against the Giants, the team probably loses. If he doesn't have a long reception to set up a FG against the Packers, who knows what happens? And if he doesn't start of the Detroit game with an 80 TD catch, who knows what happens? He made a difference.
Tell me too why it's Childress's fault that Chester Taylor, who rarely fumbled, had two fourth quarter fumbles that likely cost the team two victories?
The passing game was non-existent because Brad Johnson was awful, and he didn't really have any good WRs to throw to, anyway.
If you want to blame Childress for all the Vikings' problems, you're simply wrong. The 2005 Vikings weren't as good as their record, got blown out of many games, and had many atrocious offensive performances. It's not like Childress took over the 2004 Vikes and destroyed the offense; the offense was already bad.
And Childress is given no credit for the incredible defensive improvement. Why not? He's an offensive coach, but he chose the defense and the coaches to install the defense. He had something to do with it.
Maybe after two years of Childress's system, I will be upset and wonder if a change is necessary. After two years (or more likely three years), there would be more work to assess. But after one bad year? I'm not giving up on a coach after one bad year, especially when, as I've shown, the 2005 Vikings really weren't that good.
Ahhh Winners WIN losers LOSE - That's all that need be said....
ReplyDeleteChildress Sucks - FIRE CHILDRESS NOW !!!!!!!
ReplyDelete