Purple Insider - a Minnesota Vikings and NFL podcast - Defensive play calls, Vikings front office structure and football with chess engines (A Fans Only podcast)

Episode Date: July 20, 2022

Matthew Coller answers Minnesota Vikings fans questions, starting with how defensive play calls work and how much adjusting players need to do on their own. Plus we talk about whether Kwesi Adofo-Mensah has the power to analytics this thing as much as he wants, whether the Broncos should have been allowed to bring in a major political figure to ownership and how a football engine might do versus coaches in terms of game management. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to another episode of Purple Insider, Matthew Collar here, and this is yet another fans only podcast. I still have so many great questions, but you could get yours in the mix by sending me an email at purpleinsider.com or on Twitter, shoot me a DM or an app mention, and I will throw it into the Google doc, which is extremely full right now, but I'm working my way through your questions. So if you haven't heard yet yours yet, just be patient. Cause I think I've got like six pages of fans questions to get to. And you know, what just amazes me is how we haven't had any new information about the Vikings in quite a while. And yet every question is different and every question is creative and interesting. And so you're really making me enjoy this journey through all of these questions that

you guys have sent. So keep them coming and just be patient. If you don't hear it on this episode, it's probably coming in a, in a future one very, very soon. So let's open up the diet, Dr. Pepper. All right, get a sip here. And let's dive right into these questions. So we will begin with Tony. Can you explain defensive play calling to me? I can imagine offensive play calling with routes and reads, et cetera, but on defense, I don't understand it as well. I know there's zone versus man coverage and one could stack the box for a blitz or a fake blitz. And I understand the down and distance will affect it all. My question is how much is defense

players reading and reacting to offensive looks versus designed plays? That is a very much in the weeds football question, Tony, and a really good one. Yeah. So I think that, I mean, first there you're absolutely right to say that there are so many different combinations of things and that defense has to morph a lot based on what they're seeing, depending on different systems. So, you know, the Vikings actually might have less of this that they're asked to do this year with Ed Donatel than they did with Mike Zimmer, because a lot of times what you would have is you'd have your defensive play call, but then you have what you call checks. So, you know, Anthony bars out there, he's got the green dot, so to speak, which means he gets the play call into his headphones.

And so maybe it's a in, in that are built into his helmet, his headset. And so, you know, maybe the call in includes a pass rush, what the linebackers are supposed to do and what the defensive backs are supposed to do. Let's just, let's just think of it that way. And then everybody gets set up. So they get in their alignment, which I'm sure is part of the play call. And then all of a sudden, you know, Anthony Barr sees, okay, it's this look from the way that the offense is set up. And so he calls for a check. So, all right, let's check to this. So maybe the, the defensive line shifts or, or,

or something, right. Or you're going to play something a little bit different than you expected, or there's going to have to be a check within how they play a certain route. So I think that role is very important. And I think that it's something that without Anthony Barr there, the Vikings will miss. And Mike Zimmer always made a huge deal out of that. Um, yeah, they call for different stuff like types of blitzes. Um, and I I'm sure that there are adjustments to those blitzes. I'm sure it's not just, Oh, fire away. This is a blitz. Like you selected on Madden. I, you know, maybe it's, if we get this look, then we're going to adjust to a blitz or change to a blitz.

Or maybe, you know, last minute Harrison Smith sees something and reads and reacts where it's one of his, you know, what they call keys on each play. And those are game plan throughout the week where it's like, okay, you know, the key on this type of defense defense is if the running back you know does a certain thing then we know it's going to be x y and z so you're watching for that and that's one of your keys like defense is very complicated in that way and it's one of the reasons why it's so hard to have year to year and even week to week consistent defense and of course the better players are, the more you can ask them to do and the more types of adjustments you could probably work into your defense.

But I think that that's how it goes, that it's essentially, here's what we want the defense to be from the D line, from how many people are pass rushing, and from the coverage on the back end. So like you said, is it a zone? Is it man coverage? Is it somebody blitzing? Is it whatever else? And then there's a bunch of checks involved. And there may be less of that. I mean, I know that Rex Ryan's defense back in the day, I remember that when he was with

the Jets, he had a bunch of players who were with him for a long time. And they were a bunch of good players and they just knew his defense inside and out. So before he even sent in the call, they were knowing what he was going to do. But when Rex tried to bring it to Buffalo, they really struggled because they didn't have those ins and outs of the defense mastered as well. And so what ended up happening was they would be slow to get the checks taken care of. Then there would be miscommunications. And that's why you see sometimes where, you know, somebody's running wide open. Well, that might be because player X didn't get

the check or didn't know what the adjustment to a certain route was supposed to be. A lot of times as a corner, if you're in certain coverages, essentially if you know, your wide receiver runs this way, then you got to do X. But if your receiver runs the other way, you got to do Y. And it, I mean, it's very tough and you know, it takes, this is why it takes high level players. It's also why it takes high level intelligence. Like Jason McCourty just retired or was it Devin? I think it was Jason, one of the McCourty's. But those guys were really smart players. Anthony Harris was a really smart player. Harrison Smith. This is one of the reasons why

he's been so vital to this defense for so long, because it really does take snap reactions. It takes being able to see something, recognize it, and know what you're supposed to do in that moment. So it is a lot on the players who are out there to adjust what their jobs are based on what they're seeing as the offense. So, you know, I never put Mike Zimmer's headset on, so I can't give you a good example of like what a play call sounds like into the headset, but that's my understanding of it is it gives the defense and then the adjustments have

to happen out there with the players. And they are trained throughout camp and throughout OTAs and everything else of how to adapt to each situation, um, to make it all work. So yeah, it's a, it's a complicated game and defense is one of those things that is very delicate because you could have 10 guys do something right, but one guy didn't get the check and it's a touchdown on the other side, which, you know, you add that with offensive innovations and defenses are always trying to keep up, but every year offenses start out with new stuff that defenses then have to build in and it just piles up and piles up and piles up on the defenses. And it's a fascinating cat and mouse game.

But I think this is one of the reasons that on the last fans only or previous fans only, I was talking about how the defense just takes a little longer to adapt. And that's one of the main reasons why. Great questions, Tony. Thank you very much. Let's go to Aaron via the email. He says, I'm listening to the athletic football, Andrew Luck podcast series, which I have saved. And I want to get around to that. Thank you. It got me thinking about Ryan grigson after lucking into andrew luck one of the greatest quarterback prospects of all time his draft and roster management was a major reason for luck having to retire at such a young age i am concerned that as

the senior vice president of player personnel that he appears to be the second highest ranking in the front office member behind quacey do you find this as concerning as I do? I think that the blueprint for Kwesi to be a successful GM is a path similar to Howie Roseman. He also was not a traditional scout before becoming a GM. He'll need to lean into his strengths when it comes to analytics, cap trades, roster management, but surround himself with a great scouting staff like when Howie had Joe Douglas as his number two before leaving to be the Jets GM. I know it's only year one for Kweisi, but I haven't loved the direction so far and the addition of Gregson in his role furthers my concerns. Aaron, I think this is a very smart

email and that you laid it out very well. The reasons to look at what they've done so far and say, these things seem like traditional football men, things to do that. I know. I mean, I was being harsh, but I said at one point, where's the analytics? Like when did the analytics happen? And I guess that was in the draft that the analytics happened and they went for Lewis scene rather than going for Jamison Williams, but going for draft capital. But then I didn't really understand trading up to get Andrew Booth when he had his injury issues and where the analytics fit in exactly to that though. I like Andrew Booth as a prospect. Um. I think that you're right to wonder about, is the role of Ryan Grigson going to be so influential that it leans much more toward or sort of everything works back toward this is traditional football stuff. I would add that, well, they did, like you said, like you

laid out, made a lot of personnel mistakes while Ryan Grigson was the general manager. Some of it is bad process and some of it is bad luck. As we know from Rick Spielman, where in 2015, Rick Spielman just gets Stefan Diggs and Daniil Hunter and Eric Hendricks in the same draft. And then Trey Waynes. How many drafts do you get four starters and three of them are superstars? I would say almost never. And then in the 2016 draft, what happened? Mackenzie Alexander, Laquan Treadwell.

I mean, Kendrell brothers, like they just, you know, didn't even come close to repeating what they had done the year before. So some of Ryan Gregson's failures in Indianapolis, I think came from just hitting bad luck. But if you're concerned that what you really want is Kweisi Adafo Mensah to say, I'm going to be very aggressive. I'm going to use an extremely analytical approach and I am going to go for it. Then, you know, maybe this having Gregson in a high position holds you back from that opinion from like, or not from that opinion, but from the likelihood of that being the outcome. But you know, the thing about a general manager is we just make that guy out to be the only

person who's doing anything. And the thing is that they have so many people within an organization. So you're going to have the analytic side of things beefed up. And I already know this for a fact that Kweisi Adafo-Mensa is looking into beefing up the analytic side of things. And you're going to have the scouting side of it. And you're going to have the Ryan Grigson who's experienced in the past as a general manager, giving his opinions on players and being influential toward Kweisi Adafo-Mensa.

But I don't think that every analytical front office just says all the football men, there's the, there's the door get out. Like there's something to someone who's had experience doing that job before, even if it didn't go as well as, you know, maybe some other general managers during that same time period. So I wouldn't be willing to go as far as to say, well, that this one person in the front office is going to hold everything back. I also think there is a necessity to have someone with Kweisi Adafo Mensah that has done the job before. It's kind of like when you are a coach and you hire a senior consultant or something,

somebody who has done it before. If you're a first time coach or you hire in Kevin O'Connell's, you know, situation, hire a very experienced defensive coordinator. You see that a lot. Sean McVay brought in Wade Phillips right away, right? You know, that's, and even like Raheem Morris, Sean McVay had Raheem Morris who had been a head coach before. Now Raheem Morris wasn't a great head coach. So you could have looked at him and said, well, you know, that guy wasn't a great head coach in Tampa Bay. So he's not going to be great for us. And then he turned out to be really good as their defensive coordinator. How, how much influence Grigson is going to have is a question that's hard to answer, but the fact that he got promoted or it seemed to be a promotion right after the end of the

season kind of hints toward the answer is going to be a lot, but maybe it ends up kind of being where, you know, he is doing a lot of the stuff involved with the scouting, which is more of his, you know, his main thing and where Kweisi Adafo-Mensa is factoring and building up the analytic side of it. And then they're going to make decisions based on that. I think that the Wilfs did not want a dictator. They did not want Kweisi Adafo Mensah to just grab the reins and go and do whatever he wanted. They wanted the people in the organization on the data side and on the scouting side and so forth to feel like they all had a voice in those decisions. And for better or worse, that's what they're going to do.

I am in agreement with you that I would lean toward the side of saying, let Kwesi cook, right? Like let Kwesi take all the analytical swings that he could take. And you know what? If you lose on a super data-driven type of approach, then, oh, well, at least you played the numbers. At least you went to the casino with, you know, the, the better chance to win at blackjack than the next guy. It doesn't always mean you're going to win, but you have better odds.

And usually what analytics sort of point you toward is a more aggressive approach. And this off season was not that it was more of a safe approach to make sure that they would have a competitive team in year one and where they go from here. I, you know, we're going to have to see and we'll see if it works out and looks much more like a traditional front office and traditional type of moves. Or if we get on the other side of things, um, a much more aggressive, much more analytical approach. Remember, I mean, this is a guy coming in and we can't judge all of what Casey's going to do based on just this off season. I feel the same way as you, where I expected a different type of direction that they would take. And I expect, I expected more analytical type moves when

Kweisi Adafomensa got here. But I also don't want to say that just because they went this way, that seemed to be pretty influenced by the ownership, like doesn't mean that we're like out on Kweisi Adafomense as the GM or that we think that Ryan Grigson is like the shadow GM or something. We're going to have to let this kind of play out and then read and react from there. But I don't think that your impression of this whole thing is unreasonable. I don't based on the history and based on kind of the way that they acted in the first year of Kweisi Adafo Mensah. That's a good question. And I think a, a very fair take folks want to remind you to go to soda stick.com. That is S O T A S T I C K.com. Use the promo code purple insider for 15% off your purchase.

It is summertime. It's baseball season. They have all sorts of great Minnesota baseball gear. And if you are prepping for training camp, get your Purple People Eaters shirt, your Can't Stop the Thielen hat, and all sorts of other great football designs. Go there. Sotastick.com. S-O-T-A-S-T-I-C-K.com, promo code PurpleInsider for 15% off.

On to Justin via the email. I like your fan feedback section. Thank you. I'm listening to the podcast right now and the discussion of player and owners not being held accountable. I would like your opinion on Condoleezza Rice getting ownership of the Denver Broncos. Face value, it sounds great. Female ownership in an NFL team.

However, I find it odd that someone who worked in the political realm has now the ability to own an NFL team. And that is, by the way, going to be owned by a giant corporate company in Walmart. Hate to get too political on you, but I think this is something to be investigated by good reporters. And I respect what you do and think this might be something interesting to look into. Joe Schmo can't buy a share of an NFL football team, but someone who used to be at the highest level of Washington DC can slide right in and get part ownership.

I'd like, uh, I'd take 1% of an NFL team, but, uh, what would I have to do to get it? You'd have to be very rich to get 1% of an NFL team. 1% of an NFL team is what? I mean, if they're worth 3 billion, somebody do the math for me. It's more money than you or I have my friend. I don't think either one of us will be getting shares anytime soon. Now, as to your question about Condoleezza Rice. Yeah. I mean, um, I don't know that Condoleezza Rice is still involved in politics. Uh, I did not look into that, like how

much she was still involved, but it does feel strange, especially in like a hyper type of political world. And if you're a player on the team and you know that the contributions go to a certain party from the Walmart corporation and that the person who just bought into ownership and Condoleezza Rice, or was just brought into ownership, I'm not sure exactly which way that goes, uh, that she was on a certain side of the political aisle. I mean, you certainly have to wonder if you're doing the thing that owners were saying that players should do, right? If there's like some hypocrisy here of saying, well, we're going to bring in somebody who was a right-hand person to George Bush, a Republican president. But if players, you know, support somebody in office or whatever,

or if they, you know, make political statements on the field, are you going to allow that? And if not, how hypocritical are you? But you know what usually happens in the same way with Daniel Snyder saying, I just don't care. I will do whatever I want. And the league saying, okay, um, that's probably the case with the Denver Broncos and pretty much any other ownership. I mean, I, I know that there was a story in SI about political contributions for NFL teams. And not everyone shared exactly the same, you know, contribution to the same party. But at the same time, it's like, how can you guys say that players are not allowed to be political or not allowed to speak their minds when you're doing that, when you're contributing huge dollars to political parties and bringing in a political figure,

how can you possibly do that? But this has always been the leak, which is we do whatever we want as owners and you're supposed to deal with it as players, which is why they have an NFL players association. But is it an odd look? Yeah, no, it certainly is. But I also, I guess I would also say that even if it was someone not involved in politics at all, that most of the owners are involved in different ways. I mean, if you think that it's me and you who are pulling the strings for who gets to be elected and whose campaign gets what number of dollars and everything else, well, I can assure you that it isn't that, you know, purple insider isn't calling the shots here. It's the billionaires usually, right?

They're the ones that put these people in political office and dictate a lot of the things that end up happening. And that's not just the Waltons. I mean, that's every single owner has to have that kind of bleep you money that, you know, they could do whatever they want with and pull whatever strings they want. And, you know, I'm not trying to get to like some weird conspiracy, but just, this just seems to be the way of the world. And what I'm saying is that it's just not unique. Like the Denver Broncos situation is not unique. And I'm not sure that there's anything that needs to be done about that. Like they have the money and they're allowed to buy the team for how much it's worth. All I would say is just that if you're going to, as owners, blatantly get involved with politics in some way or another,

then you can't come back and tell your players, no, you can't do this. And no, you can't say this. And I think that in general, as a society, we have been much more accepting in the last few years of players speaking their mind when it comes to certain issues and things like that, and maybe listening to them and, and seeing also how much good is done by NFL players in their communities? And we have seen that here with the Vikings, whether it's Kyle Rudolph, you know, at the hospital, or if it's Eric Kendricks with, you know, working with, um, the, I think it's a, I forget exactly what the nonprofit that helps people who have been incarcerated, come out and gives them a job and things like that. Like there's just been so much good that's

done in each community that I also think that those people's opinions deserve to be respected as well. Just like the Vikings have their, uh, their group that gets together and, and decides what they're going to do in the community and things like that. Um, there, I think it's called like social justice committee or something like that. So, um, yeah, I guess that's the way I would look at it, but you know, hypocrisy and NFL owners versus players and everything else is just, it's just not unique at all. And, you know, I don't know what answer there is to it, but you know, when you get to a certain amount that these teams are worth, I mean, a, they can kind of do whatever they want, but B only so many people can play poker at that table. And they're going to take the people that

can play poker at that table and only those people. And it is a 1% of 1%. It's only the Walton's percent. And so you kind of have to deal with what comes along with that, with teams being worth that much. So I don't know if that's a great answer for you. Truly, it's a it's not something I think a lot about. I think a lot more about fullbacks and tight ends and stuff. But I also think from covering players for a long time that they deserve to be heard. Right. I mean, they, they just, the whole shut up and dribble thing is super offensive because players are not only citizens, but they're central figures in your community. And many of them put so much into their community

that how can you tell them, Hey, yeah, I know that you've done all these great things and donated all this money and put all your time and heart and effort into the community, but you know what? Go play me some football. I don't want to hear what you think of this or that or another thing. I think it's better to listen to educated, intelligent, highly successful individuals, um, who do a lot for where you live. So that's just a thought anyway. Okay. Onto James via the email as a fellow fan of chess. I've enjoyed your discussions of early games strategy, and it got me thinking, is it possible that we might see simulation engines eventually change strategy in the NFL, similar to how engines like AlphaZero, Stockfish, and Lila have impacted chess at the high levels.

So if you don't know what those are, those are these computer systems that have been developed to find the right moves and even to grade your moves. And so I can play a game right now on chess.com and Stockfish is this computer system that will tell me exactly how accurate my moves were. So if I play a game and I play against a computer or another person, I can just push this button that reviews my entire game. And it says your moves were 73% accurate. I hope for better than that.

I try to get, I try to get around 85 to 90% accurate. And then as you get higher and higher against the harder computers and the harder players, that becomes like not enough to be like 85% accurate. But the point is that you get instant feedback and what it can do for you is help you learn how to play the game. So if you play with that instant feedback where it can tell you that's the right or wrong move, you start to understand like the concepts behind chess that make for winning chess games. So let's just say, I'll give you an example would be if you move your rook to what they call an open file where there's nothing else on that line of squares. And so you

kind of own that the computer's going to give you credit and say, that's a good thing that helps you win. Um, or if you win a piece, for example, if you're up a piece, it's going to say that's getting you closer to winning. If you take the other person's queen, it's going to say that you are way ahead. And that was brilliant and great job. Now, if they have that for football, which they kind of do, I mean, there are some different systems. You know, I forget, gosh, I'm sorry. I forget the name of the company that says edge sports sends out a weekly analysis of every coach and how often they hit it right. And what the point

impacts were like the expected points impact. So there's essentially that something is kind of a football stockfish that already exists. I would be absolutely fascinated. And if a team, if a team wanted to try this out, there are three preseason games, my friends, that would be really interesting. If someone took this sort of engine, so to speak, and had the computer make every single decision based on expected points added, and then just took a look at how it looked, how it worked. Um, because I think that as those systems get smarter and the people who are developed, developing them, understand them better and how to apply them to exact in-game theories. Uh, I think that like the one thing that's, that's talked about, that's just actually not true is

coaches will say, Oh, well those guys, they, you know, they can't factor who's playing. That's not true. Like they can factor who's playing like as if they never thought of that in analytics, they just thought, Oh yeah, he's right. But no, they can factor it. And they do in like the edge sports and their analysis and other models, it does factor the team strength. Now, can it factor that, you know, linebacker X has been beaten all day by running back Y in real time. That would be something to add in terms of a layer.

I don't know exactly how you would do that, but let's just say that they gave it a shot and then improve them just the same way that they've improved these chess things. Like back in the day, IBM created a chess computer and had it play Gary Kasparov, who's considered the all time greatest chess player. And I think Kasparov like drew it a couple of times and beat it a couple of times, which was just really cool. Like, oh, the human can still beat the computer. But now you can't like, they're so strong that humans cannot beat like the stock fish or alpha zero on the very, very top level. Um, I, I, I mean, I, I haven't looked into that entirely, but I don't think they can.

I think that like they, that the, the computers have figured it out so well that it's almost impossible for a human to beat them. So, uh, you can develop these things, which I think are in the early stage. And it would be, it would be brilliant if a team said, we're going to test this engine in those three preseason games, and we're going to make every move. And then we're going to look at this after. And I think we're already seeing the influence of things like this in a team like the Baltimore Ravens or the Los Angeles Chargers that go by the book. The Indianapolis Colts have their analytics people in the booth on the headset with Frank Reich. So we are starting to see this, but a alpha zero stockfish type of system that could dictate each move to the letter of the numbers. Um,

it would be fascinating to watch. I would still say that I think that human element exists and you have to go by feel sometimes, but if you're someone like John Harbaugh, one of the real benefits is that everybody who plays for you understands we're playing the numbers game. Like we're doing the smart thing here. If our guy's telling us to do it, there's no second guessing it because he's got the numbers. So let's go. I think that there is something to that. As far as a benefit goes that, Hey, if you're arguing against this, you're sort of arguing against what all the data says. So at least your coach is going with the numbers, but I don't know that we'll see someone go like full Madden player or full engine ever, but I think we

are getting much, much closer to the point where owners don't want to hire coaches that aren't doing what the smart coaches are doing with the numbers. And now you're going to make that a part of your interview and all the coaches are kind of catching up in the edge, just like in chess. Uh, you know, the edge will be reduced. I think when everybody has, and this is what's so interesting about chess matches is everyone kind of knows what those engine lines are to a point. And then it's all right. We kind of have to figure it out from here. It's almost like, you know, stockfish took you so far through move 10 or 12, and then now you have to try something

new or going against the engine to throw off your opponent. Like it's super fascinating. So, um, yeah, that's a great question. And it's been, uh, it's been, it's been really fascinating, but I think that what we're seeing now is like technology like that really, cause that's the second part of your question is like, when will we start to see this? We're seeing it completely take over baseball, completely take over basketball. And it's, you know, somebody brought up an interesting point about that too. That's to the detriment in some ways, like just chucking threes all the time resulted in a lot of bad playoff games, home runs and strikeouts, not getting hits in play.

I think in football, the more data drives football, the more freaking crazy and awesome it's going to get going for it on fourth down, incredibly exciting play, throwing the ball, throwing it downfield. These are very exciting things. I think the innovations make the game more fun as opposed to in some situations less fun so thank you very much for that question i really enjoyed that one uh this comes anthony via email maybe this is a different this is a different anthony did i just

have an anthony but this is another anthony um let let's see. I promise I'll turn it over to Vikings football next time I bend your ear. But I do have a question for you with all the TV references you make. I know, uh, I have to know what your TV Mount Rushmore is. Um, let's see if you answered something like this already, forgive me. No, I haven't. Um, for example, my order is deadwood breaking bad, the wire and firefly. Okay. So here is the thing about me. There's, there's just not much to my existence outside of football. It's a handful of things. It's watching chess videos on YouTube. It's playing guitar just for fun. Uh, it's walking the dog, uh, and you know, one show at a time essentially. So I move at a snail's pace when it comes to catching up on shows. So whatever shows that you've sort of moved on and watched and whatever caught up on the Netflix, I'm like 20 behind you for great shows. So do not take

my Mount Rushmore at all seriously. And if it's got to be like the Netflix style, it's not, that's not, I can't really do too well there. Um, for, though, just overall, like The Simpsons is probably my favorite show of all time, I think. I mean, it just like not only have I like grown up watching it and we're only talking seasons like one through eight here, maybe pressing into nine or ten, but pretty much one through eight, you know, but I've also watched it again, like three or four times, which is unusual for me to find time to do that. But with the Simpsons, I felt like five Simpsons Twitter's accounts on Twitter. Uh, it's just, you know, that's been a favorite of mine forever.

Just, I always loved the cleverness. And I've told my wife before that 98% of my humor is just the Simpsons. So there's that better call Saul is number two. And as weird as that is because breaking bad was the original, I have enjoyed better call Saul better. And we have not gotten to the end of it as I record this as we're working our way through it. But I have just been so captivated by this show and so blown away by its characters and its writing and how they have tied it into breaking bad and how they've brought everything to this incredible crescendo and how they set up these storylines over months, over episode after episode after episode. And the payoff is just always there. And the acting is incredible. So that,

that's probably my number two Sopranos is right there for number three. And I know that these are not original choices. This is not deep in the weeds. I am not TV. Like some other people are with, you know, television. Uh, I am not, or like I am with football. I'm not TV. Like I am with football. I'm very basic. So I would say that The Sopranos is next, a in-depth profile of a sociopathic gangster, but also the show can be really funny and it just completely changed television. So yeah, The Wire, I think I was most moved

by all shows of The Wire. To say that I liked it almost feels like weird in a way. Cause it's so dark. Um, I'm not a wire nut like some other people are that one particular season of the wire completely breathtaking. I think it's season four. So I don't know if I put that quite on my list. Um, I might put something like parks and rec there. I just really enjoyed parks and rec and the way they develop their characters. And it's not a super dark show, but I think maybe even before that I would put twilight zone. Uh, my wife was a huge fan of twilight zone and early in the pandemic, we watched

every single twilight zone episode and the genius of Rod serling uh cannot cannot be defined i mean just like the greatest television of all time so if you haven't done that make sure you go watch it also a lot of very interesting things that sort of apply to today's society and human nature and things like that so uh highly highly recommend i think that I would put that over the wire on my top ones ever. I might be missing some, but gosh, I, I am the worst when people will say, Oh, you know, have you watched Ted Lasso? And it's like, well, no, you're going to have to give me like seven years. And then seven years from now, I'll watch Ted Lasso. And I actually, and I actually wouldn't put breaking bad there, but I would put better call Saul, which is weird because a lot of people, you know, really like, you know, Breaking

Bad and put it up there and it's super captivating and incredibly genius. But, um, I, I think I just like Better Call Saul better. Uh, so I don't know if you're one of those people or not. If you are, um, let me know, but fun question, fun question. You know, this, this shows us the camp is on the way when you're asking the worst person to ask about television about television. Um, okay, let's see. Let's get another one in here. Let's go to, uh, at Jaker nine 25 on Twitter fans only questions here. If the Vikings have a similar season to what Tampa Bay had last year in record and production for their players, would you think that was a failure and still draft a quarterback instead of using draft capital to build for a second shot with an NFC without Brady or an older Rogers? building to an extent, but the bears are doing, uh, uh, but what the bears are doing could

basically ruin Justin Fields and have them ending up drafting first next year and be pressured to take another quarterback. I think, uh, having well proven veterans on every level of the roster can improve rookies and keeps the team's culture from becoming like the teams that are horrible for decades. So let me start with the second question. First, I think that what Chicago screwed up was their timeline. They drafted their quarterback at the wrong time. Had the Minnesota Vikings drafted Justin Fields when he was available. How different is that from Chicago? Very, very different. You give him Justin Jefferson. You can add to the offensive line with all your money that you save from moving on from Kirk and having a rookie quarterback contract. You give him Adam Thielen,

Irv Smith Jr., Delvin Cook, an offensive line that you've been drafting guys for years. I mean, that's the type of situation you want to be able to put your rookie quarterback into. I'm with you that if you draft a rookie quarterback at the wrong time, you can either waste him or ruin him. That that happens around the league. And I think that maybe the Jets did it with Sam Darnold, where it's really a situation where you should sit the guy for a year or even two years. But these teams, these owners, these fans, they don't have patience to do that. So what you have to do is you have to hit on the right time. And this is what new England did with Mac Jones, where they had signed a bunch of people in free agency and

put a pretty good roster on the field and were able to drop Mac Jones, even though he didn't have superstar receivers, he had experienced receivers and a really good defense that was going to get them the ball. And he didn't have to be everything for that team. And it's a big help with confidence and developing a leadership for that guy, because the minute you're not the man right away, everyone starts to go, Oh no. Oh man. Our career, our careers are getting wasted by this kid who doesn't know what he's doing. And then instantly the fans are on you. The coach is getting fired because of you and everything can fall apart very quickly. Uh, I don't think that talking about the Vikings

drafting a quarterback has to mean you rip everything apart and are absolutely devoid of talent and your rookie quarterback can't do anything. Like, I just don't think that that was ever part of what we discussed with rebuilding. It was an actual competitive rebuild. It was my plan for the off season was sign Mariota draft a quarterback. Now look, there was no quarterbacks to draft. So I rescind that part of it, but trade away cousins, put Mariota in, make sure you're drafting high next year, or take one of the guys in the third round as a swing, but that's a waste of time. I think, but, but let's just say that you're playing Mariota as the quarterback for this year

and you win eight games because he's won nine games before in the league. If a few things go right for you, you might make a playoff spot, but you're not locked into him at all. Same with trading for Baker Mayfield. If you trade cousins and get Mayfield back, you save money, you beef up your roster. You're not locked into that guy and you can make a trade and go forward and sort of competitively rebuild by spending some of that money in free agency to sign guys who could be a part of your future. And you can go forward without having to go all the way to the bottom. Now that all said, you can use that example of a team going to the bottom and not working. But I would say that there's quite a few examples of

teams who did go to the bottom and it did work. Or even if it didn't work the first time, it worked the second time. Like Arizona is a great example. I mean, Arizona now is expected to be in the playoffs. So their coach is getting fired. How about Cleveland? Like Cleveland won 11 games two years ago. They were a 500 team last year and it was a disaster. Well, if they were a 500 team under Hugh Jackson, they would have thrown a parade. And that's just how much it changed by, you know, going to the bottom drafting at high and then becoming a legitimate contender. So, you know, there's, there's that part of it that, you know, for every bears where it's not working,

it has worked, uh worked in some other spots. So there's nothing that's a guarantee. There's nothing that's ever the exact right way to do it. Now, if the Vikings played the way Tampa Bay played last year and they threw 700 passes and they were up at the top of the very NFL, let me take a look here. Maybe they were second in expected points. They were third in expected points that they were third in expected points added through the pass average 300 yards a game and put themselves in a position in terms of

total offense to compete for a Superbowl. Then they were second in total scoring in the NFL. If that is what the Minnesota Vikings offense looks like, They are bringing back Kirk Cousins. He's absolutely coming back and you're probably not drafting another quarterback. I don't see why you would, if you could get that much out of Kirk Cousins. And you, I mean, if you're second in the T in the league and scoring, I mean, you're probably talking about winning something like 11 or 12 games and there would be no reason to go for something else. The reason we talk about drafting another quarterback is not believing that that scenario

is possible. That's why if that happens and then we could say, well, I guess Zimmer was holding back cousins and I guess Kevin O'Connell did have all the answers and Justin Jefferson did catch 140 balls and they threw it 700 times and they leaned into the Kirk as we kind of begged them to do at different points, um, through the Mike Zimmer era. So yeah, I mean, in that scenario, like that's what you're looking for out of Kirk cousins and you would bring him back.

Um, the only thing about that is, you know, do you have to extend them again or do you play it out? Because those things, as we saw from Matt Ryan, 2016 to 2017 can be very hard to repeat. Um, but interesting scenarios to throw out there. Uh, let me, uh, finish on this one and just, uh, I'll do a quick fun one here. Uh, this is from, uh, Jake from DC. First, I'm a Rochester native. Do you prefer Buffalo wings or garbage plates? Second, my Vikings related question, assuming Andrew Booth Jr. is good and the cornerback situation improves, how many years do you think it will take before the situation, both in terms of starters and depth, improves at corner?

Well, first question is, I would go Buffalo wings. But when I lived in Rochester, I ate a lot of garbage plates, but I was a simple garbage plate guy. I pretty much just had just had your hamburgers on there and then fries and maybe some, you know, ketchup on top. I was very simple when it came to that, which might offend your senses as a Rochesterian. A garbage plate is something where, uh, yeah, you put like burgers and fries and then usually there's like a hot sauce that goes on top of it. Um, that's, you know, basically whatever they scraped off the

side of the grill, it's kind of gnarly. So that's how usually there's onions and, and Mac salad and stuff. I just, uh, I keep mine pretty straightforward and then Buffalo wings from Buffalo. It just doesn't get better than that. It's my favorite food. So yeah, um, I, I would go wings there. The, yeah, the thing about, uh, Andrew Booth jr. Is he kind of holds the keys a little bit to the future of the cornerback situation, but I still think they're going to need more. They got a Caleb Evans too. We'll see if he can play.

Cam Dantzler has to prove that he could start the whole season and be good for the whole season. But Booth has the talent as a first round talent guy with injury issues, but he has the talent to be transformative to a cornerback group. So it really rests on him because Patrick Peterson is a one-year solution. Dantzler, I think is probably Dantzler where there's going to be the ups and downs, but he might be an average corner at the end of the day. That's feasible. You can work with that. The Vikings did with Trey Waynes. Shannon Sullivan seems like he's probably a short-term solution, but has a chance to prove that wrong. And as far as depth, they essentially don't really have any at the moment, unless Caleb

Evans and Andrew Booth Jr. are really ready to go. So if Andrew Booth Jr. were to rise to the occasion. And by the end of this year, we're saying this guy is the real deal. Then it's probably a year from now because they'll go into the next off season saying, let's get another corner and free agency, maybe to replace Patrick Peterson and possibly spend a little more money at that spot or, you know, replace cam Dantzler. Uh, or if they feel Dantzler is an average starter, then you would have an average starter and a very, very good one. And then you maybe need to get a nickel guy, but you'd feel much, much better about it, especially with the addition of Lewis scene. Uh, is it completely resolved to the point where it's going to be unbelievable? Probably not,

but I think every great secondary, you can't just have like a couple of okay corners. You need to have one guy that is your lockdown or your A-plus type of corner, your Xavier Rhodes, your Jalen Ramsey. I think that's very necessary. I don't know if Andrew Booth Jr. can be that, but watching some of his tape at Clemson after he's drafted, he has that capability to be that guy who is, is just really good at playing the ball. Not going to be like a 15 interception. Why did I say 15? Maybe like a five interception guy, probably not that or 15 since it's not 1962.

But yeah, he's kind of the swing guy to this because Dantzler, the ceiling's not much higher. Caleb Evans is a long shot development player and Peterson's not here long and Shannon Sullivan might not be here long, but if you can have your foundational piece and then you've got them under contract for several more seasons on a rookie deal, that is like hitting a home run. I mean, that that's like have almost like having a quarterback on a rookie deal because those guys demand $20 million. So this was very good, very fun, lots of good questions. Food, television shows, politics. We kind of got everything mixed into this one.

So I really appreciate all the questions. I've got a lot more to work with. And if you made it to the end, the five-star review really helps me out. If you can go to Apple, do that five-star review. Even if you don't want to leave anything else, if you want to leave a question there or something, you can, and I'll look for it. But otherwise, just hit that button, give a five-star review. It helps other Vikings fans find the show.

Thank you all so much for listening, and we'll catch you later.