Who made these quotes?

I'm guessing the 2nd quote was KOC.

The horror.  A leader taking responsibility for not having his team ready.   Do what we used to say to guys like that in the military?  Yes sir.  Those are the guys you follow to the end of the earth.  The ones that take responsibility.  

I think you're reading my take on this in a manner that I did not intend.  Spent 27 years before I retired in a paramilitary service where I was privileged and fortunate enough to be promoted a few times.  I took responsibility many times for shortcomings pertaining to my respective command(s).  What I found my superiors didn't have a high tolerance for, nor did I tolerate from my subordinate commanders, were repeated issues where 'taking responsibility' was a "phrase" rather than an action.  One of the things I learned about getting 'called on the carpet,' was that my superior officer didn't just want me to take responsibility (that was assumed already, but it would still be incumbent on me to verbalize it), but that I do something to ensure there wasn't (or at least reduce the chance of) a repeat occurrence of the negative circumstances.    I was on another Vikings message board several years back supporting Frazier (probably longer than I should have) despite his record exactly because of what I determined were good leadership qualities.   It's not about the leadership qualities, it's about the results that are achieved.   Les Steckl was a former military guy too, but his results were not what was hopped for when he was placed in charge of the team.


It's not the "taking responsibility" that is the bad thing.  It's repeatedly 'saying the words' but not fixing the problem you are responsible for.   My point was meant to provoke thought, and to draw a comparison between another coach who, while displaying good leadership qualities, failed.  Is O'Connell paralleling this trajectory?  

There is a subtle distinction here.  Coach O'Connell does not 'report' to us, so for all I know, he has 'taken responsibility' for the shortcomings of the team and has laid out a plan to fix the issues to the satisfaction of his superiors.  We are not privy to that information, nor likely ever to be.  
 

My failure to properly communicate my thoughts in the OP may have led to the misunderstanding that I was being critical of both these men for 'taking responsibility' for the shortfalls and that was not my intent.  The (implied) point I was attempting to make was: Are these two headed to similar 'final' results with the Vikings?  I hope I have better clarified my original position.

And as an ex paramilitary person then you understand one more thing. When the battle starts, all plans are worthless.   And sometime the best leader can't get squat out of good people while at other times a good leader can get miracle's out of scrubs.   The 1961 Packers who won a championship were essentially the same team as the 1958 scrub team except for about 4 players.  The difference was their coach.  

And sometimes the players you have just don't get it.  I've been watching the Packers for most of the year. And I can tell you this.  The game the other night was the best game they played all season on offense and defense. Hands down.   I would not be surprised if this week the Bear hand them their ass.  And it was one of the worst games the Vikings played.  And on offense, I think its because they don't have trust in whoever is in the backfield throwing the ball.  The coach can only do so much about that.  The players have say in this as well. And from what I saw, half the offense has checked out. 

Sometimes it's not who you play, but when you play them that counts.   Has the team checked out?  We will find out on Sunday.  Which one shows up.  The one that rallied behind Dobbs in Atlanta, or the one that played the Packers on Sunday.

The coach can only do so much.  After that, it's on the players.  Watch the players on the sidelines.  Their body language will tell all. 

Until Koc can make player changes now instead of 8 games later. Madison Ingram list list is long. I think he's a little soft when it comes to looking a player in the eyes telling him that ain't Good enough set down

I understand. Part of being a good leader is understanding strengths and weaknesses of individuals and putting those individuals in the best places where their strengths are allowed to shine and minimize the effect of their weaknesses. A couple of ways this can occur is to team up persons whose strengths and weaknesses complement each other, develop persons further so their weaknesses improve, or to put them in situations where the weaknesses will be less of a factor on the overall success of the mission. Way easier said, than done. But, as I used to remind my subordinate leaders when things got rough. "Any Captain can command a ship when the waters are calm." (I don't have a naval background, it was just a metaphor I used to get my point across.)

I get that when your primary signal caller goes down, it is a tall order to achieve the same results with a backup. The question in my mind is: Would the Vikings have performed significantly better if Cousins, Hockenson, et al had stayed healthy? The Vikings may have won another Division Title, but would that have translated into further success, or another one-and-done in the playoffs? While leaders' successes are always intertwined with their men's ability and performance, I still think that leaders can have a significant impact on the latter.