Previous Story Vikings can carry over red zone success under new OC DeFilippo Next Story The future of the Vikings, part 8: The cornerbacks

Zulgad: This is one block the Vikings shouldn’t have been able to make

This would appear to have been a rough couple of weeks for Kevin Stefanski.

The Vikings’ quarterbacks coach was one of five known candidates to be interviewed for the team’s offensive coordinator position after Pat Shurmur was named head coach of the New York Giants. That came a day after the Vikings’ season ended with a thud in a 38-7 loss in Philadelphia.

There had been speculation that the 35-year-old Stefanski would be promoted by the Vikings, but on Friday the team hired Philadelphia Eagles quarterbacks coach John DeFilippo to run its offense. It was expected that since Stefanski had been passed over by the Vikings that he would then be named Shurmur’s offensive coordinator in New York.

But on Saturday ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported the Giants had been denied permission to interview and hire Stefanski. This was a little surprising since Shurmur had been waiting to hire his offensive coordinator in part because he wanted it to be Stefanski, if the Vikings went in a different direction with their coordinator. Shurmur will handle the play-calling duties, but Stefanski and Shurmur clearly had developed a level of trust that made Shurmur think it was worth waiting to see what Minnesota did.

The Vikings had every right to block this move and keep Stefanski as their quarterbacks coach because he remains under contract. NFL rules allow clubs to deny assistant coaches under contract the opportunity to interview with other teams for assistant coaching positions, even if the interview is for a job that is a promotion.

But does that make it the right thing?

Stefanski joined the Vikings in 2006 after Brad Childress was hired as coach. Stefanski’s title was assistant to the head coach through the 2008 season and this meant taking care of a variety of jobs. This included monitoring the weather during training camp to inform Childress whether it was safe to practice or if an approaching storm might be reason to move inside. Childress, jokingly, referred to Stefanski as “Tommy Doppler.”

Stefanski was promoted to assistant quarterbacks coach in 2009 and held that job through 2013. That meant he survived the changes that took place following the 2010 season, when Leslie Frazier was promoted from interim head coach to the full-time job following Childress’ firing. Stefanski again was retained when Mike Zimmer replaced Frazier in 2014.

Stefanski spent the 2014 and 2015 seasons as the Vikings’ tight ends coach, was the running backs coach in 2016 and then began coaching the quarterbacks this season.

The Vikings’ decision to block Stefanski from joining Shurmur means the team clearly thinks highly of him. Nonetheless, if the Vikings were going to tell Stefanski they didn’t think he was good enough to be their coordinator, it is a slap to now make him stick around in a lesser position.

This also is a flaw in the NFL’s system when it comes to assistants because it’s not just the Vikings who are guilty of stopping their position coaches from talking to other clubs about coordinator jobs. Last year, the Eagles did the same thing to DeFilippo when the New York Jets wanted to interview him about their offensive coordinator job.

Some will say that this is fair because assistant coaches are employees who are under contract. But the NFL doesn’t allow teams to block assistants from talking to other teams about a head coaching job. The same thing should go for a position coach who has the chance to become a coordinator. That experience can be an important step toward becoming a head coach.

Vikings fans will defend the team by pointing out that Stefanski will be in line to get promoted after next season if DeFilippo’s first season in Minnesota is a success and he gets a head coaching job somewhere else.

But that’s a big assumption and also assumes Stefanski will have an interest in sticking around Minnesota after the Vikings stood in his way of getting a promotion this time.

Hopefully, for Stefanski’s sake, the Vikings increased his compensation when they informed him they were not going to let him talk to the Giants.

The NFL, meanwhile, needs to change its rules and allow guys like Stefanski to get out of their contract, if they are presented with an opportunity to move on to bigger and better things.


  • Starman

    He is 35 years old. He has been with the Vikings for 12 years. He has kids settled in a school the family likes.
    Yes, his title may have been offensive coordinator with the Giants but he wasn’t going to call the plays there either. At this point he has learned all he can from Shurmur. Now, he has the opportunity to learn from another respected OC in DeFillppo. Stefanski will be sought after when the time is right for him to move. He will be better prepared to take advantage of his opportunities. My sense would be his family is happy in Minnesota.

    • cka2nd

      You can’t read minds, so this is all speculation and projection on your part. I think you are probably right about his family’s feelings, but that’s it.

  • Doug Pitre

    Yes, a chicken shit deal. The head coaches can leave at the drop of hat.

  • Drediock

    No I dont think they need to or should change the rules.
    Far as Im concerned “under contract” is under contract.
    I know a lot of people probably wont agree with me. But if it were left purely up to me no coach would be able to leave while under contract regardless of position they might get Head coaching or otherwise. Otherwise what is the point to having a contract at all?
    Not to mention it potentially can decimate a team of its best coaches.
    Or if a team does lose a coach under contract then they too should receive some sort of compensation.

    • cka2nd

      I respectfully agree to disagree. Contracts can be voided for any number of reasons, or have out clauses. The trick is making them fair to both parties. The current rules are not fair to assistant coaches seeking a promotion to a non-head coach position and instead leave them under the thumb of management. What good is a contract if all or most of the benefits accrue to only one side?

      • Drediock

        So long as those out clauses are included in the contract. No problem. BUT. Said clauses should be in the contract.
        Barring that. A contract is a contract. You give a man your word. you live up to it.
        Under contract means under contract.
        When the Vikes let Chilly go they still had to pay him because that was part of the contract they were under. Same principle in reverse.
        If it were up to me No coach regardless of the position he was after would be allowed do leave his current team unless he and the team agreed as part of the contract to allow him/her to interview. Orrrr
        Said coach resigned his position before interviewing with any team.

        I dig you are pro labor. However pro labor seems to typically think that labor should hold all the cards and do as they wish….No.
        Sorry. a deal is a deal and if labor should be allowed to just walk away from a deal they agreed to. then having a contract at all is pointless. And allowing coaches to just go at will would result in the outright pilfering of coaching talent teams spend years trying to put together.

        • cka2nd

          I’m fiercely pro-labor but I’ve also been a part of management and have designed and implemented management and disciplinary systems, so I can understand the need for neither side to hold all the cards. And that’s even true after the revolution! 🙂

          As I noted below, companies break or breach contracts all the time, legally and illegally, so while I can respect the principle of “a deal is a deal,” it’s not holy writ to me, especially when it is manifestly unfair and weighted almost all to one side.

          It’s a cliche – beloved of centrists, moderates, trimmers and compromisers everywhere, but still sometimes true – but I have a feeling that you and I could sit across a bargaining table from each other and hammer out a deal that neither of us liked but both of us could live with. Good day to you, sir.

          • Drediock

            If you feel its unfairly weighted to one side. Then you dont sign the contract.
            I’ve been on both sides as well. in the beginning when I was labor I saw things more your way.
            Then when I was on the other side I got to see why your way doesn’t work.
            I treat people fairly. Problem is people always want more for less. No

            We probably could hammer out a deal. But I would expect you to fulfill that deal just as you would expect me to fulfill my end. Under contract means under contract. and that applies for both sides

      • linus

        Yes, contracts can have out clauses, but Stefanski’s (apparently) didn’t. And going from a position coach to coordinator is NOT considered a promotion.

      • linus

        “What good is a contract if all or most of the benefits accrue to only one side?” So Stefanski gets no benefit from his salary?

    • Llaarryy

      Totally agree. It’s no different than a players’ contract. Why not give everyone permission to talk to all players under contract, too?

      Whiners who want all individuals to have their cake and eat it too have no concept of building a winning team.

      Stefanski is 100% responsible for this situation. If he wanted to be a FA right now, he shouldn’t have taken the deal given to him by the Vikes. No one put a gun to his head.

      His dad was pretty dumb overspending for FAs for the Sixers. So maybe he just inherited the lack of contract savviness.

  • Cman

    Something that could be missed in all of this is the fact that the Vikings very well could have approached Stefanski, told him what they were doing (and why) and asked him if he wanted to stay, or go to NY.

    I don’t think the Vikings (or any team) would pass on a position coach for a promotion, then make them stay when they could better themselves off.

    • badzeitgeist

      I have to think you are right. Zim doesn’t seem like a guy who would want an unhappy assistant who doesn’t want to be here and is mad at the organization. They had to know Stefanski was ok with this before they did it.

      • cka2nd

        You guys are sweet. Naive as all hell, but really sweet.

        Cman, the speculation that the Vikings cleared their refusal with Stefanski ahead of time is rampant and is almost surely wishful thinking on the part of the fans and/or writers talking about it because that’s the only way they can morally justify it in their minds. And the idea that the Vikings or any team or any employer would not allow employees to seek promotions or chances to better themselves with other companies flies in the face of decades of experience of employer collusion to fix wages and benefits and prevent the free movement of employees. The most famous recent example that immediately comes to mind is Apple and a bunch of other tech firms doing so in Silicon Valley. That pretentious shit Steve Jobs was at the heart of it, and some of his e-mails discussing the collusion have appeared on-line.

        badzeitgiest (BadZ!!!!), you may be right that Zim doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would want to keep an unhappy assistant around, but he’s thrown assistant coaches under the bus before – when he didn’t renew OL coach Jeff Davidson’s contract – and, like most managers, can set aside both his own and his subordinate’s feelings for the “good of the organization.” And Spielman certainly strikes me as someone who can absolutely put up with an unhappy employee who nonetheless continues to do his job (management by fear or coercion is not exactly an unknown thing). Again, the idea that “they had to know Stefanski was ok with this before they did it” is hopelessly naive and complete wishful thinking on your part.

        I mean it, if I could reach through the screen and chuck the two of you under your chins like you were newborn kittens or puppies, I would.

        • TBIloveyou2018

          I admire your zeal for the cause, I take it you are one of these guys who will harass a “scab” and his family to no end.

          • cka2nd

            I wouldn’t say “to no end” – people who quote Malcolm X’s “By any means necessary” too often ignore the last word completely – but, yeah, I’ve yelled “scab” at scabs and would gladly form a picket line that did NOT allow scabs to cross, cops or no cops, law or no law. Of course, these days, it would be far, FAR more likely that a completely peaceful picket, even some grandmother or elderly priest committing non-violent civil disobedience, would be pepper sprayed in the face by a cop or “security” contractor from less than a foot away. And in Columbia and other countries that get U.S. “security” aid and police “training,” union and peasant activists are regularly murdered by death squads, often enough made up of cops or soldiers themselves. Even I owuldn’t want that for a scab.

          • Llaarryy

            Nothing wrong with being a pro-labor Marxist.

            But you’re using a Marxist approach to justify Stefanski breaking free from rules setup collectively by teams to level the playing field, just to maximize one individual’s capitalistic options.

          • cka2nd

            Nice try, but the collective you’re talking about is a collective of the owners, in other words, a monopoly. Said monopoly has come up with rules to even the odds among themselves – a hallmark of the NFL monopoly, and why many consider the NFL owners collectively smarter than their counterparts in baseball – but they are doing so at the expense of their employees. Marx would have no truck with that.

          • Llaarryy

            Nice try. It’s a cartel, a legal one, not a monopoly. You might want to look up what “mono” means.

            Back to the point, if you hate capitalists and rich people, that’s your problem. I’m just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are for abusing Marxist logic to bend the rules to further the capitalistic interests of one man who’s already in the Top 1%. Exactly what collectivism is NOT about.

            Marx would have a HUGE problem with that, when there are a 6 billion bona fide working class people who truly need to be defended.

          • cka2nd

            Cartel or monopoly, the NFL has quite a long history of legal problems under federal anti-trust statutes. And the abuse of the “independent contractor” classification of workers has become rampant over the last few decades, so I have doubts that you’re right about that distinction, either.

            I’ve lived through 30+ years of people like you arguing that football players are overpaid, that autoworkers are overpaid, that steelworkers and meatpackers and teachers and airline pilots and frickin’ supermarket workers are overpaid, and that we defend them and their salaries and their benefits at the expense of the millions and billions of poor workers and poor peasants out there. Well, that argument is bullshit and has been proven to be bullshit, as the income and compensation stripped from those overpaid autoworkers and meatpackers and flight attendants has been redistributed not down to the vast majority of those poor workers and peasants in India and Haiti and El Salvador and Mississippi but up to the owners of capital and the bloodsucking parasites of the financial markets. And it took decades of struggle, in the courts and on the picket lines, for those football players to dig themselves out of the proletariat and into the exceedingly well-paid, top tier of the petite bourgeoisie, albeit with risks to their bodies and minds that your average professional and manager can only imagine.

            Stefanski is a mid-level member of the petite bourgeoisie who is being exploited by the cartel/monopoly/trust that is the National Football League. One of the jobs of the vanguard of the proletariat is to act as a tribune of the people, all of the people, be they proletariat, lumpen proletariat, petite bourgeoisie or even bourgeoisie if they happen to be attacked, exploited or oppressed by the powers that be (lynched black business owners, gay-bashed white-shoed lawyers, even the otherwise be-damned Emperor of Ethiopia when imperialist and fascist Italy bombed and invaded his country).

            I have enormous respect for book learning, but you might try digging yourself out of your books, classes and abstractions long enough to figure out that the economic gulf between Kevin Stefanski and Zygi Wilf is as wide as the Gulf of Mexico. Karl Marx would see that gulf, and know on which side he stood.

          • Scott Myhre

            Sarry, I plum felled to sleep afore I war dun wit yourn book. I knew you was tryin to talk down at us simple folk with dem big wards and it were warkin but I was just too darn sleepy to git dun! Yu be a reel expert on Karl Marx, I kin tell…..

          • cka2nd

            Shoot! I thought you were trying to respond as if you were Adam Smith, although how you could know that he wrote or spoke in a broad Scottish accent, I wouldn’t know.

            I’m not trying to talk down to you “simple folk,” although I do try to use as much of the English language as I can (and, admittedly, sometimes more than I should…). I’m also not the person who brought Marx into this thread; Llaarryy did, and has cited him six times while I mentioned him twice before now. I don’t claim to be an expert on Marx, either, and offered no quotations or sayings by him. What I did do was provide a list of the specific kinds of workers I saw f*cked over since the 1980’s (1970’s, if I were counting deregulation), a list of a few of the countries where Llaarryy’s “bona fide working class people” have not benefited from the f*cking over of said workers, and examples of situations where Commie Pinko Reds like me have stood up for people who Llaarryy apparently thinks Marx would have wanted us to just let be f*cked over.

            Any of these words too big for you?

          • Scott Myhre

            Nope, dem wards was plenny small, nasty, but small. Sure glad you is defending da warkin class wit dem wards. I gots ta go ta church amorrow, Ash Wensday to git dem out my hed…..

          • cka2nd

            And when Lent is done, I wish you a happy, and Holy, Easter.

        • badzeitgeist

          It isn’t that I find your take too cynical – it is hard to overstate the cynicism of the NFL as a business — but your examples of Zim throwing coaches under the bus still keeps them out of the locker room. My argument isn’t that Zim is too nice to do this to Stefanski, it is that it is a distraction that Zim wouldn’t want to have a really unhappy person in that position. That is, it is in his enlightened self-interest not to do so.

  • G Rock

    Boo-fricken-hoo. Had the Patriots done it, it would be known as such a wise approach, but since it was the Vikings, lets make it negative news…typical.

    • cka2nd


      • Drediock

        G Rocks analysis was however completely accurate

        Man. You folk out there rise late on weekends

        • cka2nd

          LOL! Well, chuckle and snort out loud.

          • EMPiiRE


  • Steve Jensen

    Disagree 100%. Smart move by the Vikings. DeFilippo is likely only going to be here for a year or two max before he becomes a head coach. The Vikings have invested a lot in developing Stefanski through three different coaching regimes and will eventually elevate him to OC here once JD leaves. Perfect transition and well played the Vikes.

    • cka2nd

      Again, many assumptions, and spare me the part about how much the Vikings “invested” in training their employee (as opposed to outsourcing said training to some college or trade school, as corporate America does all the time these days). He earned every cent that he was paid.

      And, of course, GOD FORBID the employee should have any say in how his career should go. Serfs ‘R’ Us coming up, folks, but at least our masters have our best interests at heart.

      • Drediock

        While under contract. No they shouldnt unless they want to resign their position before going or being asked on any interviews.
        You expect employees to be able to go after jobs without any risk at all of losing their current ones yet the employer who yes has spent a lot of time and money in training to risk losing said employee.

        I know of many places who do as you say with outsourcing the education. Training is training no matter where its taken place. In house or at some school. It still costs the employer time and/or money invested in said employee. and most f corporate America has a requirement that you stay with said company for X amount of time afterwards or assumes the cost of said outsourced training should the employee leave the company before X time period.

        When you sign a contract. Yes that makes you a serf. Dont like it. Find a line of work where there are no contracts.
        When I sign a contract I am legally bound to the terms of that contract. I dont get to just up and break it because it doesn’t suit me. what makes you think labor is so special that it shouldn’t have to live by the same rules their “masters” are forced to?

      • Steve Jensen

        Well then try this on for size, he’s under contract, period, end of story. Before you pull out the “if he has a chance at a promotion the team should let him go” bs, that only applies to head coaching jobs not coordinator positions. The Eagles weren’t going to let JD interview with the Vikings and his contract was up in a week. They only allowed it because the Vikings told JD they would wait if need be. You think they would have allowed it if he were under contract for another year ? Yeah right. Good one. Smart move by the Vikes and one that well run organizations make all the time. Save that “master” garbage talk for another site. That’s just weak, ignorant thinking.

  • Clark Stewart

    Sign a 1 year contract instead of a 2 year if seeking higher aspirations.

    • cka2nd

      If one is offered, and that’s no guarantee, at all.

  • Topgunn

    I think Starman and Steve Jensen nailed it. I declare them the winners.

  • hougie

    Dang Judd whose side are you on anyway? Um yeah I figure if a guys under contract the Vikings have every right to block the move. Lets just let every team come in and pilfer our entire staff. Cmon. The bleeding heart crap about stefanski not being able to climb the ladder is a bit rich for me. Must be a slow news day. Teams will come calling and get him when his contract is up. Which is I believe another year. Its how the system works and how it should stay.

    • cka2nd

      And f*** you very much, and the ownership/management/corporate GOD mindset you rode in on. It’s a shitty contract rule and hopefully it will be washed away by assistant coach union action. UNION! UNION! UNION!

      As if owners and management don’t try to break contracts any chance they f***ing get. Shiiii*t.

      • Thelogicalfan

        Damn bro, all about this one sided contracts for the person signing them. Who hurt you in the past to give you such a jaded view. Its pretty clear a contract should be lived up to. Otherwise whats the point of signing a player or a coach for 5 years if they can just leave after 1 cause they feel like it. Thats not a contract then. If they wanted an opt out clause they could demand one. its not a requirement that they don’t have one.

        • cka2nd

          I was a clerical worker at a large private university when the lowest paid staff on campus qualified for food stamps and welfare even working a full-time job. Shop steward and union local executive council member for eight years in an open shop (I have a surprisingly positive view of open shops for a union person). Member of three bargaining teams. Picket line area coordinator for three weeks almost 30 years ago. Named in a private management memo leaked to us about a campaign of harassment to be conducted against union activists, a sympathetic front-line manager who had never joined the union when she was eligible, and unnamed non-members or rank-and-file members, just so, to paraphrase, everyone realized that no one, active or not, member or not, was safe.

          I also lived through the Reagan era, when unions in the private sector were busted left and right, locals sold out by their national leadership, plants played off against each other, wages slashed, benefits cut for three, four and five tiers of employees, and “permanent replacements” made the “right to strike” enshrined in federal labor law a very bad joke. If I believed in Hell and eternal damnation, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would be suffering the torments of the damned forever and a day.

      • TBIloveyou2018

        Side note since you seem to be a union guy… The last time I checked (which was a while ago I admit), the union was at 12% of the work-force which I think it has now dwindled to about 6%.

        The point I’d like to make is that unions benefit by being a smaller portion of the work-force. Which runs contrary to how union members would prefer to have everything unionized and which is also implied in your “UNION! UNION! UNION!” chant.

        The carpenters union has more purchasing power when most every other industry works for non-union wages. That is prices for you and all your union buddies are lower. If everything were unionized, yes, unions would be stronger but prices would rise along with your union wages off-setting the benefit of higher wages. Now, there is possibility that unemployment would rise instead but the result would probably be some where in between higher unemployment and higher prices, no?

        • cka2nd

          You are objectively and demonstrably wrong to think that the fewer the unionized workers, the better off are the remaining unionized workers. More unionized workers and stronger unions mean that it is harder for the bosses to undercut union wages, benefits and working conditions, and harder for them to recruit scabs. As for inflation, economic studies have shown that inflation generally takes a bigger bite out of capital than it does labor, especially gradually rising inflation of the type driven by negotiated wage increases.

          The last 35+ years are a perfect illustration of my point about a smaller proportion of the working force being unionized. Wages have been stagnant for most of that period, while benefits have been cut and working conditions gotten worse, from crippling speed-up in the meatpacking industry and at UPS to semi-permanent hiring freezes in the public sector, making do with multiple part-time jobs in the private sector and forced overtime in both. Also, Wal-Mart may have kept prices low, but at the cost of keeping wages low both in-house and throughout the low wage economy, and by palming off their workers onto food stamps and Medicaid to survive.

          • Drediock

            The primary problem with unions is they have largely outlived their usefulness as most of the worthwhile things they fought for are now part of labor law.
            Dont know about where you are but here in NJ they seem more interested in extorting money from their members to be split among the unions leadership then anything useful.
            The union leadership in that regard has become every bit as bad as the corporations they fight. Its like with socialism and communism. Everyone is equal. Its just that some people are more equal then others
            They also are a large reason for higher constructions costs in public projects typically at the expense of taxpayers. A union run project or one who’s price is set by “prevailing wage” as we have here in NJ costs considerably more then one performed by a private non union entity. Often up to twice as much.

          • Jeeves

            I’ve been in three different unions in the distant past. IBEW in 79 and 80 (power line construction in MN, SD and ND), Colorado Carpenter’s Union 81-84, and the Teamsters when I worked at UPS for a bit when I went back to school later on (90). I’ve seen the good and the bad aspects of them. All in all I would say that they are mostly positive.
            Some non-union jobs (mining esp) benefit from unions simply because the threat of organizing leads the employer to provide better wages and benefits than they normally would. The carpenter’s union provides a very good apprenticeship program that ensures that the employer will receive quality/skilled workers for the wages they pay.
            No use in using generalizations. No two situations are the same. I will agree that NJ is messed up. My brother has lived there since the late 80’s and has quite a few stories re construction there…union and non-union.
            That all being said….I’m not as fired up about the Vikings blocking Stefanski’s interview (the topic of this article…as some might remember) as I was to begin with. I wonder what the work environment will be like, however.

          • TBIloveyou2018

            Yes I understand how it strengthens the union and that is not my concern. The impact on inflation is the problem. In the face of mass unionization employers would be more likely to hire less and spend more on capital(equipment and machinery), not less. Especially in this day in age, given the advances in technology.

            All things being equal, prices would rise. In other words, if they didn’t lay anybody off, those higher costs would be passed onto the consumer, which is you the union worker. And they most certainly wouldn’t spend less on capital to off-set their rising cost of labor.

            Union membership has gone down quite considerably and so I don’t know how any economic study could accurately reflect the ramifications of a work-force that was by and large organized.

            I’m going to let you in on a little secret. It’s not going to be some politician or economist, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be some organized labor movement that solves the problem of income inequality and/or stagnant wages.

            The answer is going to be technology. Technology shall set you free my man. All those blue collar jobs in those industries you speak of, are going to be gone whether you like or not. And believe it or not its only going to be a good thing. There will certainly be hardship during this transition but it will be for the best in the long-run.

          • TBIloveyou2018

            The highest union membership rate was recorded in 1954 and was 34.8%. In 1980 it was 20%. Something over 50% would be interesting to see. I would love to see such a high rate just for the purpose experimentation. So many people including myself have such strong convictions about things that can rarely be proven.

          • cka2nd

            I believe that there are several Western and Northern European countries that have had and may even still have a unionization rate over 50%. Interestingly enough, France does not, and yet its working class is among the most militant in the world, and one of the most productive, the combination of which should really make anti-union folks’ heads spin.

  • Lester Stkl

    I’d like to see Childress come back in some capacity.

    • TBIloveyou2018



    It is BASEBALL season how about it?

    • Drediock

      Baseball season is just a distraction to keep you entertained till Football season starts 😉

  • linus

    “even if the interview is for a job that is a promotion.” Position coach to coordinator is not a promotion.

    • Gordon Guffey

      He would have been OC in name only if what I have read is true ~ Shurmur has said he was going to be calling the plays when the offense was on the field ~

      • cka2nd

        linus, that is sheer sophistry. Of course it is a promotion to go from being a position coach to being a coordinator. I can pretty much guarantee that any offensive or defensive coordinator, even the least experienced, is going to be paid more than all but the most elite and legendary position coach. And Gordon, you and I do not know the ins and outs of the profession, but I think it is safe to assume that play-calling is not the only unique duty of a coordinator.

        Hey Judd! That would be an interesting question for an interview with Zimmer and/or George Edwards, or even for Greg Childress: What are the responsibilities of an offensive and defensive coordinator who does not call the plays for their unit?

        • Gordon Guffey

          I was just going off what they were saying over on the Giants new outlet ~ I dont know much ~ You should know that by now cka2nd ~ LOL ~ I will try to find that link again ~ I would have keep it but I didn’t think it would be important seeing how it wasn’t really Viking news ~ I was looking to see if they were really going to sign our QB coach when I found it ~

        • Scott Myhre

          Do you mean Brad Childress, our ex head coach?

          • cka2nd

            Yes, I do. Thank you for pointing out my error.

  • linus

    “Shurmur had been waiting to hire his offensive coordinator in part because he wanted it to be Stefanski” Pure speculation.

  • David Prestin

    The idea of signing someone to multi-year contract is to lock them in so they dont leave the team. Sorry but once again I can’t agree with a 1500 article. Least you guys are consistent lol.

  • Peter H.

    He wouldn’t have called the plays in NY, so the move was essentially a lateral. So it was okay to block it.
    Also as others have said, including Judd, those are the rules. The NFL is a business about winning, and if the Vikings feel that Stefanski is the best option to having their starting 2018 QB help them win, then it was okay to block it.
    And who’s to say that behind the scenes (and I have NO intel on this), that maybe Stefanski didn’t really want to uproot his family from Minnesota after 12 years. Maybe the Vikings’ “denying” was his escape route to save face, a la McDaniels in New England.

    • cka2nd

      If Stefanski was going to be paid more, and I think that is pretty much a guarantee, than it was a promotion.

      Judd and I both acknowledge what the current rule is, we’re just both saying that it is unfair.

      • EMPiiRE


  • Scott Myhre

    Judd, did you check this out before you spouted off? Stefanski was good friends with Shurmer and he didn’t want to turn him down for this job, so he let the Vikings be the bad guys! Do you seriously think they would keep a guy against his will? If you do you are a bigger idiot than most of this group think you are. Why do you think they call you jug head and juggs? Check it out, I got this from a reliable source who wants to remain anonymous..

    • cka2nd

      “Do you seriously think they would keep a guy against his will?”

      Yes, bosses do it all the time. Sometimes the rule is out in the open, like here, and sometimes it’s collusion, usually hidden but occasionally exposed, like the Silicon Valley wage-fixing deal that Steve Jobs was in on (google it).

  • Brent

    If the Giants really wanted something for the Viking’s coach they should be willing to give something back in return. How about a guard? A third round pick. It is both a competitive game and a business. Spielman owes it to the Vikings to maintain the best team he can. I hope Stefanski is an OC for Vikings next year. Trading him away would give us zero chance of that

  • Vikoments

    I like Stefanski but I would have done the same thing regardless of whether he was a friend of Shurmur or, on the other hand, didn’t want to go. We don’t know how much Stefanski contributed to the game planning last year. We do know that Stefanski was intimately involved with the QBs and I believe the actual reason Keenum was able to make adjustments not Shurmur, just an opinion. Shurmur got the credit for Keenum’s adjustments and Bradford’s play but I’m not certain both weren’t Stefanski or at least a good portion Stefanski. Even with DeFlippo as OC I wouldn’t want to give up Stefanski’s insight into the Shurmur game planning or Keenum and Bridgewater’s development. The combination of the two OC styles could be a really good thing.


Previous Story Vikings can carry over red zone success under new OC DeFilippo Next Story The future of the Vikings, part 8: The cornerbacks