What IS wrong with the Vikings?

Out of curiosity, what is the correct response from Zimmer in this case?

If he's too rough and tough, that's a problem.
If he calls guys out, that's a problem.
If he's beside himself, that's a problem.
If he's calm, collected, and logical, that's a problem.
If he's at a loss, that's a problem.
If he's optimistic it can get back on track, that's a problem.

What would be the acceptable response from him at a moment like this? And why is that the only correct response? 

Zimmer is the owner's problem and their money.  However, with a horrible OL, you have to have a mobile Qb, Kirk is not.  He had a comfort zone with both Thielen and Diggs that is gone. You say we can't dump Kirk, probably true, but you could draft a Lawrence, give him a year to sit and learn the pro game and then give Kirk a choice, he can be an expensive backup for one year, after which he will be released with no market, or he can request a financial settement and Vikings will be done with him. 

Next problem is Spielman is not horrible, so if you fire him, you had better be sure that his replacement is better.   

Part of the problem is with Identity, and I'm sure some of what I mention here has been mentioned on other threads (I don't get the chance to read them all)

In the off-season two years ago when we got Cousins we created inconsistencies that have confused our identity and the team we are trying to be. We got Cousins, and teamed with Diggs, Thielen and Cook is a pretty fair starting point for an Offence.
But then at the draft we took Hughes in the first round rather than an O-Lineman. Up until then we had promoted the identity of an aggressive, tough, defence, so fair enough if we took Hughes, wanted to keep our identity and keep playing this way. But then it seemed we went to this hands-off, bend-but-don't-break defence, but still a defence-first, offensively-safe team.
So we've spent plenty of money on some offensive pieces but haven't properly committed to them. Is that Zimmer being unable to change? But then why go to a more submissive defence?

For me personally, any of them would be fine except "If he's at a loss, that's a problem." 

He's pissed off/tough/calling players (and coaches) out, good, he should be after their performances the last two weeks. 
If he's calm and logical, great! That's probably the best outcome, especially if he's optimistic about getting back on track.

If he's at a loss... that means he has no plan on what to do and he's not showing the fire/energy that made him one of the best coaches in Viking history.

Both of these statements can be true, he can be one of the best in the team's history, and his time here may have run it's course now. 

This thread has a lot of good dialogue and intelligent takes, with the exception of the above.

We can't fire the owner. If he ever comes out of his delusional coma and cleans house we might have some hope. Until then it will just be variations on the same themes of what's wrong with Kirk, Zim, Rick and the team they've built.

Sadly, I seriously doubt even a 12-16 loss season will bring that change, because this organization loves its own comfort zone and rationalizes failure by pretending it's close to success to avoid change and risk. That can go on for a long time.

Here's a hopeful take for you (not that I have any faith ownership would do this but, a guy can dream, right?)

The team is 0-6 or 1-5 at the bye. They can Zimmer. Keep Hunter on i.r. Give lots of playing time to rookies, get their feet wet. Lose 12 or more games and find a way to draft Lawrence or the other high rated qb whose name escapes me. Come January fire Rick, get a new g.m. and coach and start building. Clean out the deadwood players and contracts.
You're stuck with Kirk unless you can get Shanahan to take him so deal with it.

As I said, a guy can dream.