Sharper explains 'playmakers' issue

**Marrdro** · 11-01-2007, 09:09 AM

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

uh oh... you know what happens to players who question chilly.
now we start the countdown untill when sharper gets the boot

You would have to believe that Sharp was trying to hang someone out to dry on this (specifically the Chiller and Staff).

I doubt that this play on his words constitutes his eviction from Winter Park my friend.
;D

Some however, will try to spin it that way though.
Especially the ones who have axes to grind (again).

**CCthebest** · 11-01-2007, 09:30 AM

"Marrdro" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

uh oh... you know what happens to players who question chilly.
now we start the countdown untill when sharper gets the boot

You would have to believe that Sharp was trying to hang someone out to dry on this (specifically the Chiller and Staff).

I doubt that this play on his words constitutes his eviction from Winter Park my friend.

;D

Some however, will try to spin it that way though.
Especially the ones who have axes to grind (again).

Fact: Some players who questioned Childress and his new offense and defense are no longer playing for the vikings. Thats a fact. No need to spin anything. And Sharpers comments are real close to bruising Childress's ego, err quesioning Childress.

**marstc09** · 11-01-2007, 09:35 AM

"CCthebest" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

uh oh... you know what happens to players who question chilly.
now we start the countdown untill when sharper gets the boot

You would have to believe that Sharp was trying to hang someone out to dry on this (specifically the Chiller and Staff).

I doubt that this play on his words constitutes his eviction from Winter Park my friend.

;D

Some however, will try to spin it that way though.
Especially the ones who have axes to grind (again).

Fact: Some players who questioned Childress and his new offense and defense are no longer playing for the vikings. Thats a fact. No need to spin anything. And Sharpers comments are real close to bruising Childress's ego, err quesioning Childress.

Childress is a baby and I hope these comments do not hurt him because I like Sharper a lot.

**Marrdro** · 11-01-2007, 09:50 AM

"CCthebest" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

uh oh... you know what happens to players who question chilly.
now we start the countdown untill when sharper gets the boot

You would have to believe that Sharp was trying to hang someone out to dry on this (specifically the Chiller and Staff).

I doubt that this play on his words constitutes his eviction from Winter Park my friend.

;D

Some however, will try to spin it that way though.
Especially the ones who have axes to grind (again).

Fact: Some players who questioned Childress and his new offense and defense are no longer playing for the vikings. Thats a fact. No need to spin anything. And Sharpers comments are real close to bruising Childress's ego, err quesioning Childress.

Fact: Some that did are still playing on the team as well.
:

If you go off the premise that
a.
This is everything he said.
b.
That the writer didn't spin what he said
c.
That in fact everything he said was negagtive against the staff.

I don't think the writer gave us everything he said, and I do believe that he did spin it to get the desired flow to his article/point across.

Additionally, his one comment about players stepping up puts some of the blame on the players for not executing.

Based on those 3 things I don't see this as anything more than a tidbit that Anti-Chilly guys will gravitate to and spin to meet thier own ends as well.
;D

**jargomcfargo** · 11-01-2007, 09:52 AM

"MNgriff" wrote:

I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.

Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
But the part that I saw as problematic is.......

Tick, tick, tick

**MNgriff** · 11-01-2007, 09:56 AM

I'm pretty sure that chilly willy has said the exact same thing to the press on numerous occasions. Winfield actually called him out directly last year on the fan and he's still around. Sharper is a leader and as soon as he retires I guarantee he will be in a broadcast booth somewhere. I'm not worried about a single thing.. same old rhetoric different mouth saying it.

**snowinapril** · 11-01-2007, 10:01 AM

"singersp" wrote:

Asked how this could be accomplished, Sharper said: "Just let them be playmakers. ... If you have guys that have a lot of special talents, have abilities, just go out there and let them do their thing."

Sharper considers himself in the playmaker category, and it's clear he feels he could do more to help this defense. He had an NFC-leading nine interceptions in his first season with the Vikings in 2005 but has six in 23 games playing in the Cover-2 scheme implemented last year.

"You know the nature of this defense is the safeties are just going to be back deep. You can't be involved," he said. "Would I like to have more opportunities to be free and be aggressive? Of course I would, because that's the type of game I have. But I have to accept the fact that our defense a lot of times does not call for me to do that."

That's just one more example of Childress, Frazier & Bevell not using our players to their best potential & adjusting the schemes around the players abilities, but rather forcing them to play to their way.

Isn't every safety in the NFL going to say he would like to have the chance for INTs?

Considering some of the recent teams that have won the Super Bowl and appeared in the Super Bowl have used the Cover 2, it can't be all that bad to try and implement it.

I think there is a difference between letting offensive play makers make plays and having rogue guys on a defensive unit, opps I mean defensive play makers.

**NodakPaul** · 11-01-2007, 10:02 AM

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

uh oh... you know what happens to players who question chilly.
now we start the countdown untill when sharper gets the boot

Why don't you enlighten us?
The last player I know of that expressed frustration with Childress is Winfield.
Last I checked he is still starting...

My guess is you were referring to MRob.
If you think that MRob was released solely because he questioned Childress, then you must have missed most of last year.
There was also the issue of him refusing to practice, but then wanting to suit up for the games, not to mention the way we criticized his head coach.

Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

**Marrdro** · 11-01-2007, 10:03 AM

"jargomcfargo" wrote:

"MNgriff" wrote:

I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.

Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
But the part that I saw as problematic is.......

Tick, tick, tick

Very nice.

One question.
Do you see any future playmakers on the team right now?
My opinion is we do have the playmakers, however, they haven't evolved into them yet.

Do we need more?
Yes I think so, however, When Rice figures out how to get off the line and our OT figure out how to protect and our CB's get a bit better at covering etc etc etc.

Face it, our problem is that we are relying on a bunch of young kids to come in and execute at the level of a 4-9 year vet at alot of key positions (and I'm not just talking about starters but they guys that rotate in as well).

Hopefully the staff will make another solid draft, get us a QB, WR and DE to compliment what is already out there and you will have a very exciting team, again IMHO.
;D

**MNgriff** · 11-01-2007, 10:10 AM

"jargomcfargo" wrote:

"MNgriff" wrote:

I agree with sharp and I would say that players need to play and coaches need to coach. Players are not executing on opportunities to make the big play and coaching schemes are limiting the number of opportunities. The guy has been around the league for longer then I've been alive(well not that long) and I do respect his assessment. Sometimes I see a play and I'm like "WOW OMFG!" then our team looks like an absolute mess.
We have talented player it just seems like they're not able to sustain it for an entire game and that's partially players and partially coaching. I think that's all he's trying to say.

Agreed. It's a combination of execution, scheme, and coaching. But there is also a lack of playmakers on this team. And my take of Sharpers comments is the scheme is inhibiting some on the team who would be playmakers. Primarily hisself. No player likes to lose when they think they are capable of winning.

If Childress and company gert a third year to obtain a few more playmakers who fit their scheme, they could be pretty good.
But the part that I saw as problematic is.......

Tick, tick, tick

I agree partially but again you're only taking the part you want to hear. For one in our system on nickel we rotate winfield to the slot and marcus on the #1 WR and this look is happening a lot on third downs. Now do I want a rookie covering a #1 guy? Not at all but that's what the scheme calls for, but why have the guy playing in a system that better fits his current skill level then forsaking all of the other playmakers on D the opportunity to adjust to the system that the coaches believe is the best for our future? We've had an incredible rate of turnover and you have to start somewhere.