VIKES v RAMS @ Arizona 1/13/25

[gunnarthor]

5 minutes ago, Danchat said:

That's what I don't get. The Cardinals game was similar, he was taking sacks and the OL was stinking, but the 4th quarter comes around and Sam suddenly starts hitting his open receivers and they complete the comeback. The Packers game was a huge matchup and he seemed completely fine, and tore up their secondary. I'm not shocked he turned back into a pumpkin, but I am also confused as to why there weren't more warning signs before the Lions game.

It could be nerves. (Herbert played worse for the Chargers, Love also played ... poorly). But it could also be bad adjustments or play-calling. On the fourth and 2, Jefferson tripped and all the other receivers were running ten yards up field. I don't think the Vikings were ready for the pressure in both these games, Darnold got knocked down, starts to press, vicious cycle forms, presses more, doesn't see the receivers, presses more, starts worrying about his next contract, etc.

He did a great job of coming out of that midseason and played great against the Packers and Seahawks. He did look somewhat better after the game got away and I appreciated his toughness on his long run. But, yeah, bummer the Darnold from those games didn't show up.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Man, I can't say it anymore than that first play shows.  WR screen left.  Jefferson is open.  And Darnold stands around and takes a sack...while looking right!

It's like calling HB screen in Madden and thinking the real play call is the deep shot on the other side.  It's a level of bad QBing that simply defies explanation.

[Aggies7]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

 

Man, I can't say it anymore than that first play shows.  WR screen left.  Jefferson is open.  And Darnold stands around and takes a sack...while looking right!

It's like calling HB screen in Madden and thinking the real play call is the deep shot on the other side.  It's a level of bad QBing that simply defies explanation.

He just looked panicked every time we attempted to pass. He was holding the ball for over 4 seconds on a lot of his sacks. 4! The most egregious one was on third down late in the game. Just launch it somewhere, get a penalty or something. 
 

I think his nerves took the whole team out of the game. It affects the whole team when the QB is a head case

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

He just looked panicked every time we attempted to pass. He was holding the ball for over 4 seconds on a lot of his sacks. 4! The most egregious one was on third down late in the game. Just launch it somewhere, get a penalty or something. 
 

I think his nerves took the whole team out of the game. It affects the whole team when the QB is a head case

Here are two stats to support your point:

Of the 24 pressures, only 11 came before 2.5 seconds.

He averaged 4.73 seconds holding the ball per sack.

[Aggies7]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Here are two stats to support your point:

Of the 24 pressures, only 11 came before 2.5 seconds.

He averaged 4.73 seconds holding the ball per sack.

That’ll help set the playoff sack record for sure 

[gunnarthor]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Here are two stats to support your point:

Of the 24 pressures, only 11 came before 2.5 seconds.

He averaged 4.73 seconds holding the ball per sack.

I'm not sure 'only' is being used properly there, but your point is made. 

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

I'm not sure 'only' is being used properly there, but your point is made. 

11 pressures on that many dropbacks isn't as much as it sounds.  High end pressure teams are generally between 35-40%.  So 11 normal pressures on 40 drop backs isn't an insane number.

You'd like it to be better, obviously.

[Aggies7]

Am I the only one who just KNOWS that the rams will lay an egg against the eagles? Something tells me that Philly fans won’t give a flip about the wildfires lol

[AlwaysinModeration]

12 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

This about sums it up

When did the Cleveland Browns win a title?

[Aggies7]

5 minutes ago, AlwaysinModeration said:

When did the Cleveland Browns win a title?

Same era the lions did, back when there were like 10 teams. It counts as there was no “Super Bowl” type came between leagues

[ashbury]

Feels to me like the outcome starts with Minnesota getting outcoached.  And it's not as though the Rams had some kind of super game plan - they just copied what the Lions figured out the week before.  KOC and company didn't seem to have a counterpunch in mind that would make an overly aggressive defense pay 5 yards at a time.  Instead they seemed to have blind loyalty to an offensive line that was simply not up to the task of running a long-pass oriented game plan.  Time after time, Darnold rejected the choice of throwing short when protection was collapsing; I doubt it was mere stubbornness on his part, but adherence to a plan ("they'll get open if you are just patient enough") that we can see had no chance of success because of lack of personnel up front.  Put Darnold behind an offensive line like Kurt Warner was blessed with, back in the day, and sure, he could have stood around and waited for the receiver of his choice to get open, but those magic setups for QBs are rare.

I didn't like the choice to go for it on fourth down late in the second quarter.  Just punt it and plan to go to the locker room down 17-3 and regroup.  Instead, they thought the chance of going to halftime down only 17-6 was worth enough to gamble against it turning out the way it did and lose the game for all intents and purposes right on the spot.  Getting it to 17-10 with a touchdown was becoming a longshot at that point anyway, setting aside the fourth-down situation.  There's times when going for it on fourth and two near midfield makes sense, but not there.  That play was needless desperation disguised as aggressiveness, high risk and low reward, and it cost them.

[Aggies7]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

Feels to me like the outcome starts with Minnesota getting outcoached.  And it's not as though the Rams had some kind of super game plan - they just copied what the Lions figured out the week before.  KOC and company didn't seem to have a counterpunch in mind that would make an overly aggressive defense pay 5 yards at a time.  Instead they seemed to have blind loyalty to an offensive line that was simply not up to the task of running a long-pass oriented game plan.  Time after time, Darnold rejected the choice of throwing short when protection was collapsing; I doubt it was mere stubbornness on his part, but adherence to a plan ("they'll get open if you are just patient enough") that we can see had no chance of success because of lack of personnel up front.  Put Darnold behind an offensive line like Kurt Warner was blessed with, back in the day, and sure, he could have stood around and waited for the receiver of his choice to get open, but those magic setups for QBs are rare.

I didn't like the choice to go for it on fourth down late in the second quarter.  Just punt it and plan to go to the locker room down 17-3 and regroup.  Instead, they thought the chance of going to halftime down only 17-6 was worth enough to gamble against it turning out the way it did and lose the game for all intents and purposes right on the spot.  Getting it to 17-10 with a touchdown was becoming a longshot at that point anyway, setting aside the fourth-down situation.  There's times when going for it on fourth and two near midfield makes sense, but not there.  That play was needless desperation disguised as aggressiveness, high risk and low reward, and it cost them.

I would agree on the coaching but not even LOOKING at Justin Jefferson when a screen pass to him was called (and actually set up well)….that’s where Darnold loses me. Similar to Detroit, he had guys open. Like, possibly big gains too. The plan, whatever it looked like from the outside, was not executed by the quarterback. It’s unfortunate that the sport is set up to have so much emphasis on one position, but that’s what it is. You don’t have to be great or elite but you can’t be terrible and detrimental to your team’s chances, you can’t be a net negative. All the winners over the weekend had competent quarterback play for the entire game. And all the losers didn’t. I can’t think of one winner that did so in spite of their quarterback. Even Hurts, 2 TD, 0 picks 111 rating.

It was sort of crazy to go for it in that situation before the half, but the rams would have had about two minutes and a timeout to work with. I imagine a punt would have also ended in points allowed (although maybe 3 and not 7)

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

I would agree on the coaching but not even LOOKING at Justin Jefferson when a screen pass to him was called (and actually set up well)….that’s where Darnold loses me. Similar to Detroit, he had guys open. Like, possibly big gains too. The plan, whatever it looked like from the outside, was not executed by the quarterback. It’s unfortunate that the sport is set up to have so much emphasis on one position, but that’s what it is. You don’t have to be great or elite but you can’t be terrible and detrimental to your team’s chances, you can’t be a net negative. All the winners over the weekend had competent quarterback play for the entire game. And all the losers didn’t. I can’t think of one winner that did so in spite of their quarterback. Even Hurts, 2 TD, 0 picks 111 rating.

It was sort of crazy to go for it in that situation before the half, but the rams would have had about two minutes and a timeout to work with. I imagine a punt would have also ended in points allowed (although maybe 3 and not 7)

If I built the best race car ever, spent weeks training the driver not to drive into walls, had everything prepped and ready to go.....and the driver takes a hard left into the wall....all my work will be lost.  I may even look like part of the problem.

But I didn't actually whip the wheel to the left and hit a wall.  

[Aggies7]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

If I built the best race car ever, spent weeks training the driver not to drive into walls, had everything prepped and ready to go.....and the driver takes a hard left into the wall....all my work will be lost.  I may even look like part of the problem.

But I didn't actually whip the wheel to the left and hit a wall.  

And that’s why they were slow walking to the LOS and running draw plays with 8 minutes left down by 3 scores. I think there just wasn’t anything to call. He was throwing hospital passes. Even the TD pass was wildly inaccurate

But that could also be a criticism of the coaching. If you’re at the point where one guy is preventing you from attempting to run an offense, maybe you ought to sub him out. I know Mullens is kind of looked at as a joke (and I’m certainly not suggesting any outcome would have been different), but isn’t it a little surprising that he wasn’t put in? Like I said, the passes from Darnold were so inaccurate, I think the receivers were a bit like “**** this”. Kind of surprised they didn’t toss him in there and let him throw it all over the joint like a crazy person.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

Feels to me like the outcome starts with Minnesota getting outcoached.  And it's not as though the Rams had some kind of super game plan - they just copied what the Lions figured out the week before.  KOC and company didn't seem to have a counterpunch in mind that would make an overly aggressive defense pay 5 yards at a time.  Instead they seemed to have blind loyalty to an offensive line that was simply not up to the task of running a long-pass oriented game plan.  Time after time, Darnold rejected the choice of throwing short when protection was collapsing; I doubt it was mere stubbornness on his part, but adherence to a plan ("they'll get open if you are just patient enough") that we can see had no chance of success because of lack of personnel up front.  Put Darnold behind an offensive line like Kurt Warner was blessed with, back in the day, and sure, he could have stood around and waited for the receiver of his choice to get open, but those magic setups for QBs are rare.

I didn't like the choice to go for it on fourth down late in the second quarter.  Just punt it and plan to go to the locker room down 17-3 and regroup.  Instead, they thought the chance of going to halftime down only 17-6 was worth enough to gamble against it turning out the way it did and lose the game for all intents and purposes right on the spot.  Getting it to 17-10 with a touchdown was becoming a longshot at that point anyway, setting aside the fourth-down situation.  There's times when going for it on fourth and two near midfield makes sense, but not there.  That play was needless desperation disguised as aggressiveness, high risk and low reward, and it cost them.

I don't love that KOC felt like he gave up and kept Darnold in there.  If he gave up, he should've put in Mullens.  I don't love the 4th down call, both strategically or schematically.  It did feel like the moment was too big for his team and that part is on the coach for preparedness.  I put that all on KOC and he should learn from it.

But I can't blame him at all for the game plan.  They did have run plays and short/quick passes called.  As you say, the QB passed them up.  Most of the sacks came after 4 seconds.  There isn't an offensive line in the league that holds up that long on a regular basis.  It wasn't pressure most of the time...it was pure....I don't know what to call it?  Frenetic brain?  There is no rational reason to pass up that JJ screen.  To miss checkdowns to TJ and Jones all over the field.  Nailor over the middle.  The only explanation is a complete mental breakdown by the QB.  It's what happened last week and it happened again.  He literally crashed the car as the race began.  It was a level of incompetence that no game plan could overcome.

[stringer bell]

22 hours ago, Danchat said:

That's what I don't get. The Cardinals game was similar, he was taking sacks and the OL was stinking, but the 4th quarter comes around and Sam suddenly starts hitting his open receivers and they complete the comeback. The Packers game was a huge matchup and he seemed completely fine, and tore up their secondary. I'm not shocked he turned back into a pumpkin, but I am also confused as to why there weren't more warning signs before the Lions game.

I'll go with home vs. road mostly and quality of opponent, as well. Darnold had a wonderful first 16 games of the regular season, but the season ended with two poor outings.

[nicksaviking]

Poor clock management and a lack of route diversity, yeah those things KOC should have been better at, but I kind of think the main offensive issues kind of put the team in a box the last two weeks. And these were issue everyone knew the Vikings had going into the year, but insanely really didn't impact them until late.

Darnold got away with holding the ball way too long all season long. They couldn't run on obvious run down plays all season long. The pulling lineman couldn't block out in space all season long. But somehow for 17 weeks they mostly got away with it. These were clear issues, but not really fixable with the players on hand, so I think it's hard to blame them for thinking their best show was to band-aid these things one more time.

 

[TheLeviathan]

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Poor clock management and a lack of route diversity, yeah those things KOC should have been better at, but I kind of think the main offensive issues kind of put the team in a box the last two weeks. And these were issue everyone knew the Vikings had going into the year, but insanely really didn't impact them until late.

Darnold got away with holding the ball way too long all season long. They couldn't run on obvious run down plays all season long. The pulling lineman couldn't block out in space all season long. But somehow for 17 weeks they mostly got away with it. These were clear issues, but not really fixable with the players on hand, so I think it's hard to blame them for thinking their best show was to band-aid these things one more time.

 

I think one thing we haven't mentioned is that as good as the Wilfs are as owners, their requirement not to tear down and rebuild has made the process more difficult to fix some of those roster issues.  This is the first offseason where KAM really has the tools to do whatever it is he wants to do.  

Hopefully there is some investment in the running game.  I have ZERO concerns about route diversity.  People seem to forget that our complaint about the KOC system under Cousins was that we didn't push the ball enough and were too content to throw underneath.  KOC has plenty of short, intermediate, and deep concepts.  The problem the first two years was a QB who didn't have the guts to push the ball.  This year we had a QB who could ONLY push the ball.  (He was a dreadful intermediate and short thrower, even when we were doing well)

What does need to change is the running game.  That piece has remained an issue and the personnel going into next year is in desperate need of an overhaul.

[gunnarthor]

I thought this was a good post-mortem on the Vikings loss. It's not excusing Darnold's performance but is correctly calling out the lack of adjustments made by KOC. 

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2025/1/14/24343283/vikings-fall-flat-to-end-their-season

"Overall, the Vikings held in a tight end or back to pass block on just five of Darnold’s 40 dropbacks according to PFF. The Rams did the same on twenty of Stafford’s 27 dropbacks."

I do hope we bring in another offensive mind to work with KOC and maybe even taking over play-call duties next year (maybe). I think someone from Cincy - similar offensive pieces, Buffalo - they led the league in blowout wins, which means they might be able to address how opponents get back into games, or Baltimore - Harbaugh tree. But if the only thing we get out of the last two losses is to blame it on the QB, we're not learning enough.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, gunnarthor said:

I thought this was a good post-mortem on the Vikings loss. It's not excusing Darnold's performance but is correctly calling out the lack of adjustments made by KOC. 

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2025/1/14/24343283/vikings-fall-flat-to-end-their-season

"Overall, the Vikings held in a tight end or back to pass block on just five of Darnold’s 40 dropbacks according to PFF. The Rams did the same on twenty of Stafford’s 27 dropbacks."

I do hope we bring in another offensive mind to work with KOC and maybe even taking over play-call duties next year (maybe). I think someone from Cincy - similar offensive pieces, Buffalo - they led the league in blowout wins, which means they might be able to address how opponents get back into games, or Baltimore - Harbaugh tree. But if the only thing we get out of the last two losses is to blame it on the QB, we're not learning enough.

The analysis on the extra blockers is a legitimate criticism.  We might have tried that as an adjustment.

However, that article doesn't do the same level of analysis on the pressures.  13 of the 24 pressures came after 2.5 seconds.  If Matthew Stafford had held the ball 4-7 seconds, I guarantee you our pressure stats would've also been in the 50% range.  Any QB who thinks they can hold the ball 4-5 seconds is going to make pressure statistics pop off the page.  Unfortunately, as fans, we have the camera zoomed in on the pocket and our inclination is to blame all pressure on the OL.  But the QB has a huge role in pre-snap reads, throwing the ball away, and making quick reads in limiting the damage of pressure.  Or eluding it at all.  Stafford and Goff demonstrated what a true starter does to limit this.  Josh Allen is insane at avoiding these sorts of problems.  Mahomes too.  Those are high bars and obviously Sam can't be expected to be at that level....but he has to be better than he was to be a viable starting QB or not shoulder the lionshare of hte blame.

The coach is no longer in his ear when those things have to happen and with Darnold, it shows.

There is 10% of this KOC probably could've changed.  He can't change calling a screen left and his QB takes a sack looking right.  He can't fix calling a 2 yard swing pass and his QB misses by 5 yards.  Or an open dig over the middle missed by 5 yards.  Or literally scheming Addison open for a TD, telling his QB to throw there or throw away, only to result in a 7 second sack.

You can lead a horse to water, but the SOB has to drink.  Just like with Cousins doing the inverse in the past.  I'm hoping, in JJ, we have someone willing to take what is given but also try to snatch big plays.  (While also hoping our coach and GM invest into the running game much more heavily)

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I thought this was a good post-mortem on the Vikings loss. It's not excusing Darnold's performance but is correctly calling out the lack of adjustments made by KOC. 

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2025/1/14/24343283/vikings-fall-flat-to-end-their-season

"Overall, the Vikings held in a tight end or back to pass block on just five of Darnold’s 40 dropbacks according to PFF. The Rams did the same on twenty of Stafford’s 27 dropbacks."

I'm not going to disagree that the Vikings should use backs and TEs to pass block more often, but I think that number is off. I just watched the sack/pick compellation highlights (lowlights) and in just those ten plays I saw three times where the RB was left in to block. And on another one, it looked like Jones was left in to block, but passed off his guy to the DL so he faded out in the open as a safety valve because he had nothing else to do.

I will say that in those lowlights, the TE was never doing more than chipping a guy and then running a route. However, looking at the stats, Mundt had 16 offensive snaps and Oliver had 19, while the Vikings only ran the ball 22 times. It's hard to believe that those two otherwise ran routes on all but two plays as PFF suggests (as I mentioned above, the RB stayed in to block at minimum in three of those ten plays).

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm not going to disagree that the Vikings should use backs and TEs to pass block more often, but I think that number is off. I just watched the sack/pick compellation highlights (lowlights) and in just those ten plays I saw three times where the RB was left in to block. And on another one, it looked like Jones was left in to block, but passed off his guy to the DL so he faded out in the open as a safety valve because he had nothing else to do.

I will say that in those lowlights, the TE was never doing more than chipping a guy and then running a route. However, looking at the stats, Mundt had 16 offensive snaps and Oliver had 19, while the Vikings only ran the ball 22 times. It's hard to believe that those two otherwise ran routes on all but two plays as PFF suggests (as I mentioned above, the RB stayed in to block at minimum in three of those ten plays).

Thank you, I didn't have time to explore that data.  It seemed off to me too.  Even if we had gone max protect...does anyone feel like that would've changed the outcome?  I sure don't.

For those that want a visual of open, short receivers......brace yourself:

 

https://x.com/VikesPA/status/1879224036875784332

[TheLeviathan]

And if you can't watch the following link and finally see what the real problem is, I don't know what to say:

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Thank you, I didn't have time to explore that data.  It seemed off to me too.  For those that want a visual of open, short receivers......brace yourself:

 

https://x.com/VikesPA/status/1879224036875784332

wish that wasn't on X, but I'm not sure I want to watch anyway....

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

wish that wasn't on X, but I'm not sure I want to watch anyway....

I got you my friend....

 

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I got you my friend....

 

At least two TDs.....also, you must have missed some scrapes. I recall more, and I only watched the first half. It's water under the bridge from a Darnold perspective, but gives one hope about the play calling....

[TheLeviathan]

18 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

At least two TDs.....also, you must have missed some scrapes. I recall more, and I only watched the first half. It's water under the bridge from a Darnold perspective, but gives one hope about the play calling....

It's preposterous once you start to see it.  I really appreciate what Darnold did this year.  It was fun.

It's also evident that he's not the guy.  Nor should what happened the last two games give us pause about our head coach.

[gunnarthor]

Again, we're all in agreement that Darnold played poorly. That horse is dead. You can stop kicking it.

The other issue is whether this is all Darnold's fault - in which case, fine, we're good. Or, does the coaching staff's failure to adjust need to be addressed?

I love KOC. I think he'll end up winning a super bowl with the Vikings and go down as our best head coach. I'm all in on him. But he's not perfect. Packer fans were confident going into the game a few weeks ago that MLF would outcoach him by making better half-time adjustments. And I think we were pretty clearly outcoached against Detroit and LA. 

Levi mentioned that Cousins also effed up by throwing the checkdown. But does that fact that multiple QBs have struggled at times to implement KOC's offense correctly concern us? I'd note that Mullins put up good numbers in his scheme but also threw some horrific interceptions when the pressure got to him. And KOC didn't change his playcalling to adjust to the fact that Dobbs was a good runner - fans here actually complained that the Giants Daboll used Jones' feet better. 

In any event, my concern - and I'm not sure it's founded - is that we need another offensive mind to be a check on KOC, ideally from a different coaching tree. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

9 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

Again, we're all in agreement that Darnold played poorly. That horse is dead. You can stop kicking it.

The other issue is whether this is all Darnold's fault - in which case, fine, we're good. Or, does the coaching staff's failure to adjust need to be addressed?

I love KOC. I think he'll end up winning a super bowl with the Vikings and go down as our best head coach. I'm all in on him. But he's not perfect. Packer fans were confident going into the game a few weeks ago that MLF would outcoach him by making better half-time adjustments. And I think we were pretty clearly outcoached against Detroit and LA. 

Levi mentioned that Cousins also effed up by throwing the checkdown. But does that fact that multiple QBs have struggled at times to implement KOC's offense correctly concern us? I'd note that Mullins put up good numbers in his scheme but also threw some horrific interceptions when the pressure got to him. And KOC didn't change his playcalling to adjust to the fact that Dobbs was a good runner - fans here actually complained that the Giants Daboll used Jones' feet better. 

In any event, my concern - and I'm not sure it's founded - is that we need another offensive mind to be a check on KOC, ideally from a different coaching tree. 

 

You don't get to become angry and defensive after you keep trying to revive the horse.  You posted a link, am I not allowed to respond?  Cmon. It's not like I've been negative on this team all year and waiting to pounce on Darnold.  Up until three weeks ago I was firmly in "I don't know what to do.  He's playing so well the decision is complicated"  So spare me this tone you keep getting and then blaming me for it.  Please.

Getting the right QB matters even to smart coaches.  Do you think the Rams and McVay paid the heavy price to upgrade from Goff to Stafford for no reason?  Read that again - Goff, the current pilot of the NFL's best offense - was dumped so that McVay could see his offense rise to its best form by replacing him. Not every QB can be great, even given the ingredients to do so.  What we saw from Darnold was evident: he was given all the ingredients.  He was shown the recipe.  He was told how to make it.  He was instructed how to not start it on fire.  Then he blow-torched it in such epic fashion it's still hard to fully comprehend it.

What KOC needs is his Stafford.  Let's hope JJ is that guy.

[gunnarthor]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You don't get to become angry and defensive after you keep trying to revive the horse.  You posted a link, am I not allowed to respond?  Cmon. It's not like I've been negative on this team all year and waiting to pounce on Darnold.  Up until three weeks ago I was firmly in "I don't know what to do.  He's playing so well the decision is complicated"  So spare me this tone you keep getting and then blaming me for it.  Please.

Getting the right QB matters even to smart coaches.  Do you think the Rams and McVay paid the heavy price to upgrade from Goff to Stafford for no reason?  Read that again - Goff, the current pilot of the NFL's best offense - was dumped so that McVay could see his offense rise to its best form by replacing him. Not every QB can be great, even given the ingredients to do so.  What we saw from Darnold was evident: he was given all the ingredients.  He was shown the recipe.  He was told how to make it.  He was instructed how to not start it on fire.  Then he blow-torched it in such epic fashion it's still hard to fully comprehend it.

In the link I posted, I literally said we weren't excusing Darnold's performance. Not sure what else you need. The issue isn't Darnold anymore. In my post prior to that, I agreed with your assessment. But to make it clearer for you - Darnold was bad. We lost the last two games because of Sam Darnold. He will not be the QB the Vikings rely on for their future. We all good? 

As for KOC, I do think we can legitimately question him without it being a "KOC is crap." His playcalling is both good and bad. Darnold gets knocked out for a play, he has Mullins come in and sling the ball b/c he isn't changing his game plan. That's extremely cocky and had good payoff. But it's also dangerous. Up by two scores against the Packers on fourth down, how about a Nailor jet sweep? Inside the three against Buffalo, let's have Cook do a jump throw. Inside the five against the Lions and we won't kick a field goal - so let's not try to run a bit more? Those are all issues that were brought up in game threads this year. Again, love the guy. But IMHO, he deserves some of the blame for this loss because we were outcoached.