Blog Entry

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

Posted on: October 20, 2009 4:01 pm
Edited on: October 21, 2009 1:38 pm
A contract extension is in the works for Minnesota coach Brad Childress, with a new deal possible within the next two to three weeks.

That would make sense because a) the Vikings are off to their first 6-0 start since 2003, b) they've improved each year under Childress and c) they have a bye after their next two games.

There had been speculation that Childress' contract would not be addressed until after the season, but his agent, Bob LaMonte, was seen at Sunday's Vikings-Ravens game, and sources close to the club said he was there partly to see Childress and partly to negotiate a new deal.

Childress is in the fourth year of a five-year contract and was supposed to be under a Win-or-Else ultimatum this season. Well, he's won, and while management does not have to address his situation immediately it appears it will. One source said an extension is so close that an announcement could come early next month, but another indicated that nothing is "imminent."

Maybe, but it sure looks as if something will be done at or around mid-season. Childress' success seems to have resonated with the team's owner, Zygi Wilf, who has seen the club go from six to eight to 10 wins in Childress' first three seasons. Now at 6-0, it's safe to assume the Vikings will exceed Childress' 10 victories of last year. The hitch, of course, is that two of their toughest games this season are the two taking them into the bye -- at Pittsburgh and at Green Bay. But when I asked one source what obstacle could sabotage a potential deal I was told, "nothing." We'll see.

Category: NFL

Since: Sep 15, 2009
Posted on: October 21, 2009 4:03 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

The one main weakness we've shown so far is our coaching and discipline in finishing games...and we're going to extend the head coach's contract?

One of the main things that may be preventing us from getting approval for a new stadium and insuring that we keep the team is the unnpopularity of our coach...and we're going to extend that head coach's contract?

We're a team notorious for starting seasons strong and finishing them not so strong...and not even half way through the season, we're congratulating the coach on a job well done and extending his contract?

Honestly, I will even put all of my hatred for Childress aside (because I think he should be out of here), and say that we should AT LEAST just wait until the end of the season to see where we go and worry about his contract.  That we are even considering otherwise seems ridiculous.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: October 21, 2009 2:00 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

Please sign him......maybe 10 years or so.

Since: Aug 13, 2007
Posted on: October 21, 2009 2:00 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

That would make sense because a) the are off to their first 6-0 start since 2003, b) they've improved each year under Childress and c) they have a bye after their next two games.
Reason C should in and of itself be reason enough to re-up Chili-dog right now.  Why wait to see how the rest of the season turns out??  Whaddya waiting for, Mr. Wilf?!  If Chilly's contract isn't extended before the bye week, I'm gonna get so pig-biting mad that I'll start a movement to get fans chanting "Mister Ziggles" at all Dome games.

Since: Dec 20, 2006
Posted on: October 21, 2009 1:36 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress


Childress would be a good personnel man.  Offer him the job.  We are lucky to be 6-0 with him at coach.  He is not capable (either intellectually or emotionally I am honestly not sure which, it could be a lack of intelligence or stubborness, I just don't know), of making adjustments, of altering game plan to take advantage of an opponents weakness, of altering his approach to best suit the kind of talent he has around him.  Does Belicheck "care" how he wins?  He will run it a lot before Brady developed into Brady, then pass a lot, then switch when he thinks it will be helpful.  Remember Shula?  When he had Csonka and Morris at RB and Griese at QB, he ran.  When he had Marino and Clayton/Duper he passed.  Does anyone think Childress could make this kind of adjustment? 

Many times he has refused/proved incapable of making adjustments when teams are having success against the vikings doing "something", what ever it is.  And his first year, he made the most incredibly stupid coaching decision I have ever witnessed.  He doesn't start his rookie QB all year, even though brad Johnson is showing his age and having a poor season.  The he finally goes with Jackson for a Thursday night game!  You don't start your rookie all year "because he is not ready" and then you start him on a short week?  You gotta be kidding me.  That decision told me all I need to know about Childress's coaching.  I have never seen a coach make a dumber mistake, ever. 

I want ot put that last statement in context so anyone reading this doesn't mistake the concept dumb, with the concept of "more severe consequences".  Mistakes like drafting Tony Mandarich instead of Barry Sanders, or letting players like Terrel Owens ruin a team's chemistry definitely have had worse and longer term consequences, but looking at things from the outside you can at least understand the thinking (of Andy Reid to use that example)... if I (Andy reid) talk to him, blah, blah, maybe we can get him to understand, get him to think bigger picture... he does produce on the field, etc.  Sure eventually you realize that TO isn't going to get it, and sure that mistake had worse consequences, but it was understandable.  

So with the difference between butt-naked stupid and "worse/longer term consequences"  ...

Starting a rookie on a short week, given the fact that all season long you had justified the fact that you weren't starting him because he wasn't ready, is simply the single most stupid coaching decision I have ever witnessed in my life.

Last but not least, his lack of ability/willingness to make any kind of adjustments based on his personel really shows regarding the Wildcat.  He is not smart enough (again, or too stubborn, I actually lean toward stubborness) to incorporate the Wildcat hardly at all, even though it is proven at this point and even though, outside of Philly with Michael Vick, we have the best personelle to employ this tactic.  Tavarious is not headed to the Hall of Fame, but he was improving and is a decent QB at this point.  To have him run the wildcat several plays per game would give the vikings that extra blocker but still leave a legitimate passing threat, making the wildcat potentially devastating for us.  The only reason we haven't used it more, imo, is that Childress is too stupid/stubborn to incorporate anything "new" and new to him means any technique that hasn't been around for at least a decade. 

It is cliche to say you can never be certain about predicting the future, well I can be certain about one thing.  Brad Childress well never be associated with an innovation.  Buddy ryan 46 defense, bill walsh, west coast offense... other coaches to a lesser degree will introduce new wrinkles from time to time (a different way to set up the flea flicker, a planned pooch kick/onside kick (see the Arizona cardinals last week against Seattle).  These aren't "innovations" on the same level as the wildcat, the westcoast offense, or the 46 defense.  But I predict (with absolute 100% certainty) that you will never  see something like that from brad childress.  He is a sit-com like exaggeration of the "can't teach an old dog new tricks" type.  He takes it to the point of parody that would be funny in a TV sit-com character.

And now we are probably going to extend his contract, even though the defense is definitely not as good as its been.  <SIGH>  The Vikings never seem to be able to put it all together at once.  Usually a good team, every once in awhile a legitimate contender, but no Super Bowls.  Now we are going to waste Adrian Petersen's career but extending Chidress's contract.  I wonder what I did in a previous life to deserve being a Viking fan?  I have no choice, I am.  I have even tried to not be (when they passed on Warren Sapp I told myself I was done with them and yet when the season started I couldn't help being a fan).  I must have been very evil to deserve this.

Since: Jun 27, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2009 1:19 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

The NFL, also would not likely allow for a sale of the Vikings.  The reason is that the Vikings have markets that would be difficult for other teams to get a hold of.  If the Vikings left Minnesota, the NFL would lose, North Dakota, South Dakota, even some in Nebraska and Iowa, not to mention Minnesota itself.  Minneapolis is the 15th largest metropolitan area in the United States.  The NFL has 32 teams, it would seem ludicrous for the team to move.  It would be an all around financial move.  The NFL would not be able to keep all of those Vikings fans.  Most of them would feel very dirty cheering for the next closest teams, the Bears and Packers.  The next closest after them is the Rams and the Chiefs.  Honestly who would jump on the band wagon for those two teams who are ten hours away.  The NFL, is not going to let the Vikings leave without another team to fill that market.

And don't fool yourselves into thinking that Los Angeles has no team.  They have the Chargers straight to the south of them.  They have the 49ers and Raiders to the north.)  Even if LA does get a team, there are other teams that would be less damaging to the NFL at large in terms of market loss.  The Jaguars moving would suffer virtually any damage.  Buc's and Dolphins are both in state teams that wouldn't have problems gaining Jaguar fans.  Rams have the Chiefs in state and the Bears are not far away.  All though, the Rams are one of the teams that should be kept around.  The Raiders could move, but a lot of people would be thinking, "again?  the Raiders move to LA from Oakland?"  I maintain by the way Wilf spends money on the Vikings and the market share which they have suggests a Vikings move is highly unlikely.

Since: Jun 27, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2009 12:53 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

Childress has blown huge leads the last three games?  I will agree with the Ravens game.  The Rams game, we gave up a field goal in the second quarter and our back ups gave up a touchdown in the fourth quarter, while we had 35 points.  I guess I can see how that is a blown lead.  The nine points we gave up to the Packers in the fourth quarter, were quite insignificant.  The Packers after scoring that ninth point needed 55 seconds to tie the game.  The 49ers game was a back and forth game in terms of who held the lead.  Started off slow against the Lions and exploded in the second half.  The samething happened against the Browns.  So, 1 out of 5 games we have blown the lead.  I can really see your logic in how he has blown the lead in the last 3 games.

The Vikings are not likely to move to L. A..  Many people actually believe the only reason the Vikings have been thrown in the hat for the L. A. move is to pressure the State of Minnesota into financing the stadium.  The group looking to move a team to L. A. has a large list of other possible teams.  They have Rams, Jaguars, Chargers, and Raiders are amongst the other possible teams.  Personally, I think the most likely team would be the Jaguars.  The group building the stadium in L. A., isn't very fond of moving the Vikings.  He knows the Vikings have a strong fan base in Minnesota, he doesn't want to be the guy who plays the main role in moving the team.

Childress this season, in terms of playcalling is overly conservative.  When we are playing from behind, Childress becomes very good in terms of playcalling.  When we have a lead he pulls back, and tries to not lose the game.  On days when our defense is making hell for the QB's it works.  Against the Ravens it didn't work as well, and we almost lost the game.

Childress major weakness as a coach is that he doesn't seem to want to put away teams when he has the chance.  He could've given the cushion for the defense to give up those points in the fourth quarter, but he didn't.  He was trying to not lose the game.  He was coaching conservative.  Until Childress develops that killer instinct as a coach, we will see games like we saw against the Ravens.

I agree with many of you.  I'd wait until after the playoffs to decide whether or not to keep him around.  If we make it to the NFC title game and play competitively in it, (No, 44-0 like Dennis Green's 2000 NFC title game) then I would give him an extension.  However, anything less then the NFC title game, he does not deserve the extension, not with the amount of talent that we have.  I can respect a loss to the Saints in the NFC title game, the Saints are a very good team.  I do not respect us starting 6-0 and not winning at least one playoff game.  I think we are right now a favorite to have a first round bye.   Outside of the Saints, there is no team the Vikings are not completely capable of beating within the NFC.  (I do recognize also that many of these teams can beat the Vikings as well.)

Childress contract extension should not depend upon how he beat some of the lesser teams in the NFL.  It should depend upon how we do in the playoffs, it is that simple.

Since: Oct 21, 2009
Posted on: October 21, 2009 12:47 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

I get annoyed when I read posts that say we haven't played any good teams.  Its the NFL it doesn't matter who you play yo can get beaten any given Sunday.  It isn't always the case of the Vikings playing down to opponents, it also opponents gearing up to play one of this years better teams.  If any game is or should be a gimme, then why even bother playing the games.

Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2009 12:18 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

You just jumped to the top of the list as the DUMBEST POSTER EVER> Are you serious? Gardenhire. Gardenhire is the best coach in any minnesota sports. WOW!!! You know nothing about sports and I will always remember never to read a post from someone who is this incompitent.

Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: October 21, 2009 12:15 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

Who got Ap and Farve? Childress did! Who got Allen, Rice, Harvin, Chilly did Case closed !!!!!!!!

Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: October 21, 2009 12:10 pm

New deal on horizon for Vikes' Childress

I find it funny that vikings fans hate Childress. Childress has improve the teams record every year, they have had the top 3 running game every year, they have had the best run defense 3 years in a row (NFL record), and they have won a division championship and are about to win another.  I am a bears fan living in minnesota and I watched every Vikings game for 3 years except when the Bears play at the same time. Chilly could go undefeated and win the SB and vikings fans would still call for his head.

Vikings fans are the worst bandwagon fans in any city

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or