Thread: Childress: Team lacks playmakers, not plays

[size=13pt]Childress: Team lacks playmakers, not plays[/size]

The Vikings coach remains confident of the offensebut says Minnesota needs more big-play guys and more consistency.

Judd Zulgad
Last update: February 25, 2007 – 12:51 AM

Gotta disagree with this headline.

Did Kliensauser and Wiggens turn into non playmakers in one season??

I can't tell you how many times my friends and I would just turn to each other and shake our heads play after play. You know, the screen pass behind the line of scrimage.....

I feel we need a top end Offensive Coordinator ASAP......

I am never one to get on a coach (supported Green and Tice to the end long after buds were calling for their heads) but.......... I have seen nothing, zero, to lead me to believe Chilly is a high level head coach yet.

I don`t think Childress ever wants to take the blame for anything.
The thing with Mike Tice that I loved is he always took the blame no matter what.
Childress gave Nate Burlesson a non-tender offer last year at this time, we would LOVE to have Nate in the Purple right now.
Also, I mean I gotta agree with PurplePlain I cannot think of one GAME Childress called well this year, maybe every game`s opening drive that was scripted.
The guy has to take the blame and be held accountable for everything not "lack of playmakers. " He inherited a guy with 4. 3 40 speed in Williamson, maybe the guy gets his hands fixed and starts catching some balls but de-activating him for 8 games is not the answer either.
Sorry guys I jus really can `t stand Chili `s attitude

"PurplePlain" wrote:

Gotta disagree with this headline.

Did Kliensauser and Wiggens turn into non playmakers in one season??

Neither JimmyK nor Wiggy were what I would call "playmakers".
Both of them were move-the-chain guys, although Kleinsasser really hasn't been that for 2 or 3 seasons, long before Childress came on board.

This season, certainly, the Vikings didn't appear to have many players who could take the 5-yard slant and turn it into a 40 or 50-yard gain.
That's what I would call a "playmaker", so Childress is certainly correct to a degree.

=Z=

I'll agree with Zeus on this one, and the first thing any WR had to do is CATCH the ball......I don't remember seeing more passes dropped than I did last year, by this team...




But we do need some Playmakers for sure.....Think about it, how many players on our Offense are worthy of a Franchis Type Player Tag, NONE.....

"NordicNed" wrote:

But we do need some Playmakers for sure.....Think about it, how many players on our Offense are worthy of a Franchis Type Player Tag, NONE.....

If the contract situation called for it, I would put the Franchise tag on Birk or Hutch.

On defense, KWill or Winfield.
That's about it.

=Z=

well for the most part Childress is right. Well at the same time the run,run, underneath route to moore, Yeah playmakers would be nice someone who can catch would be a start. Now if these guys are serious about that they need to make some moves.
MMLV

Even mediocre play calling would have "made" more "playmakers" with out a doubt.

How does one explain Marcus Robinson (arguably the best "playmaker" in our lacking WR stable being sat down and only playing 10 games??????

Chilly has to take more responsibility for the inept play calling.
Like previously said, Tice did a wonderful job at that.

There may have been many plays...but Chilly was calling them in the wrong sequence!

Let me qualify my statement.........

Do I think we need more playmakers??? A resounding Yes

My problem is his passing the blame entirely off the playcalling, when it was a major cause of last seasons horrible offensive performance.