You think I'm crazy! Just because I go to sleep every night with my Fran Tarkenton pillow!

No. I thought Favre's "holdout" put the team behind the 8 ball. But even as bad as Bret played in 2010, the Vikes were one redzone play away from victory in the first two games. I was quite specific about the first two games intentionally. They were just not going to be one of the better teams in the league, even with a cosmetically better record.

Philosophically, there seems to be a difference between those of us who play the "what if" game - both in a positive and negative sense for the Vikings - and those who say the record speaks for itself. I think that you have to consider how a team loses, when considering the relative strength of the team. I'm talking about both directions. If your team is winning a lot of close games against weak opponents, you probably are susceptible to injuries wiping out your chances. If you are losing close games against playoff teams, you probably aren't too many players from being successful.

I think back to 2000: We went to the NFC championship game, but weren't excessively strong. We had two blowout wins (>16 points) and two blowout losses during the season. That speaks of a team that maybe isn't as strong as the second seed would seem to indicate. I won't remind anyone of how that game came out. In contrast, in 2009, we had six blowout wins and one blowout loss. It was a much stronger team, perhaps the strongest in the league, even though there was only a one game difference between the two years.

So last year we had one blowout win and three blowout losses. St. Louis had a record one worse than us, but had seven blowout losses and no blowout wins (in a pretty easy division too). The Bucs had a record one better, and had six blowout losses and no blowout wins. The Redskins, two games better, had two blowout losses and no blowout wins. And we lost something like three overtime games. The team has a ways to go, but not as far to go as a normal 3-13 team.

It's an interesting debate as to who what or why the 2010 team flailed so mightily. IMO, aside from the lack of Rice and the apathetic play of the o-line,(they really didn't play incredibly well in 09 either...Favre's ability to improvise bailed them out plenty until the NFCC)....what I saw was that Favre really had very little left mobility wise. His desire seemed lacking too....like he felt obliged to be here. Then the whole text scandal, ugh what an ugly season to follow up 09 with.

I think it was a big deal losing Rice but Favre wasn't up to snuff anyway...he hadn't recovered from the saint game. Bringing him back for 2010 was a critical miscalculation....especially with the way the O-line panned out.

Oh yeah, I forgot about penis-gate. 2010 couldn't have been a larger disaster if a meteor had hit Winter Park. Sidney Rice? Yeah, right.

Yes. The Jets brought up Favre sexual harrassment thing before they played the Vikes in week 5. And that seemed to knock the team for a bit of a loop. But at halftime of that game, something clicked, and from then on, Favre actually started playing well again (after his 4 game "preseason"). At least, so far in my viewing - Jets, Cowboys, Packers. I'm watching that Packers game now - game six. I know how it turns out.

Again, how good is a 2-4 team? One that loses three games on the road to playoff teams (two 11-5 teams, and the eventual superbowl champs), where they had the ball late in the 4th quarter of each of those games where a TD gives them a win?

I have to dissagree. In July 2010 they had a choice between a hail mary to get Favre back and starting TJack. IMO, after 4 years of seeing him on the field, that decision is a no brainer. You come of 2009 and no you were better than the Saints. You do what you have to do to try to make one last run. Yes, hindsight is 20/20 and Favre sucked it up in 2010, but IMO that is irrelevant to the decision making process which resulted in 2010 Favre. The major transgression in terms of personnel was the Moss move anyways.

At least 2010 ended on a somewhat positive note when it rid us of Childress.

I would argue that in terms of signing an aging veteran QB the McNabb signing in 2011 was a far worse decision than 2010 Favre. Favre had shown ability, even greatness in 2009, not his 1990s heyday, but still probowl caliber. McNabb had shown in 2010 what he would be in 2011 and he didn't dissapoint.

You nailed it. How wonderful 20/20 hindsight is. I was totally fine with bringing Favre back the next year and I thought that bringing in McNabb, a wiley veteran, to mentor Ponder was also a great idea ,especially since there was no training camp and very few other options.
Boy all the geniuses come out of the wood work when things go wrong....They should not have brought Favre in the first year, that proved them wrong and then they should not have brought him back a second time, that was a big 20/20 guess and statement, which with 20/20 help proved them correct (If I had a choice, not knowing what would happen, I would have brought him back again).
You could go on and on, back to Darrin Nelson (missing out on Marcus Allen), Demetrius Underwood, or taking Harvin, or AD etc..
Many fans were displeased in not taking Blackmon (how is that looking right now?)

Yep....20/20 what a great tool to have after the fact

As terrible as the McNabb decision was. Bringing in a veteran was the right decision coming off a lockout with no off-season, they just brought in the wrong veteran. At least we had the "QB of the future" on the roster. In 2010 we were a team on the decline with our best WR out and they begged a banged up 41 QB who seemed not to sure if he wanted to play anymore to be there QB AND they had nothing on the roster that could even be considered as a long term option at QB.

You can say hindsight and all and some of it may be hindsight but if you archive my posts from august 2010 you can see I personally didn't want Favre back.

The great thing about this board is that you can always go back and look at what people were saying. Personally I never wanted Favre at all, especially not in 2010 because I simply didn't think the vikes would win the superbowl with him and it would set the franchise back by continually not developing the QB position. Admittedly they got a LOT closer in 2009 than I thought they would but ultimately the exact thing I thought would happen did, granted like you say, there was some added benefit getting Childress out of here so it wasn't a total loss.

I just took a different perspective, for example, it's mentioned that we had to get favre because the only other option was TJ, that seems logical. My take was that I wanted to see TJ play because the sooner we realized he sucked the sooner we could draft a high end replacement, don't need much hindsight to come to the conclusion that if we used favre in 2010 that process would be delayed.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't trade the 2009 season for any other Viking season, and I was WRONG about Favre, that was a hell of a run and fun to watch. But don't call it hindsight after the 40 year old QB shattered his ankle and came back to play at 41 because we SENT players down to his house and guilt tripped him into it!

My point is more to defend the decision to bring him back. After a run like we had in 2009, the question for me (at that point in time) would be do we have a shot with most everyone returning (at that point the Sidney Rice injury wasn't knwon to be as severe as it ended up being.) with Favre or TJ? You have to play the cards you are dealth and at that point and time, I think the decision to go with Favre made a lot more sense, the team had every reason to think it was still competitive. You had several seasons of Jackson starting which lead you to get Favre. Had they seen something in camp to persuade them that things had changed? The trips to MS say otherwise.

I do agree that bringing Favre in extended the Childress era probably 12-18 months longer than any of us would have liked, which was a long term negative. However, there isn't a guarrantee that things would have gotten better sooner. The Moss and McNabb moves were for me what really exposed the dysfunctional management situation going on under the Wilfs. Who is to say that issue would have been resolved or fully vetted out in a 2010 rebuild campaign? I don't think there is any certainty on that.

Fixing that issue is actually the biggest positive for me. Whether Spielman is solid as a GM or not remains to be seen, but at least structurally the team seems to be in a much better position than what we had in 2006-2011. They will still need to find an answer at QB, but at least the decision making process makes some freaking sense.

I was for Favre coming back in 2010. Indeed my "miscalculation" comment was born of pure hindsight, and I'm stating the obvious. As many have expressed the real issue was having Favre being the only viable option at the onset. I can't think of too many peeps who thought TJack would roll through the NFC....even Childress

I don't think the idea of signing a "McNabb" was a bad idea...except that it was McNabb ....seems like he was the only vet available. As it stood they were more or less the same team from 09 needing a solid veteran QB to make them a contender. Both signings were miscalculations in hindsight, but in the moment I was behind both of them and it was essentially the same decision..."we need a veteran guy who is familiar with west coast offense cause we have a good team otherwise". The extent of McNabb's failure surprised me, although I was probably in the minority on that one.

I'm happier where this team is now vs where it was this time in 2010. No stop gap retread QB....a younger, more athletic O-line and no Bald Clueless. There is a future now...not a window slamming shut.

I guess one could ask what we learn by rehashing over the same issues. I for one enjoy the debate, in part maybe because I don't have a definite position on a lot of the issues. Did the 2009 Favre help us or set us back? That leads to the question of whether a year where we go 13-5 total is a pleasant experience, pleasant enough to be able to sit through a spell of bad QB play now and/or missing the higher draft picks that would have come with less success.

But I think we can evaluate the past better after time has passed. At the time it happened, I was incredibly pissed when the refs took away the Shiancoe TD in Green Bay, after having called it a TD originally and then seeing the replay which confirmed it was a TD (the league apologized for the bad ruling later that week). And that was on top of giving the Packers a phantom TD in the first half. It was the difference in the game. At the time, it might have looked important. Now, it would have just made us a 7-9 team at the end of the year.

So if you have any doubt, rewatch the games. You can see so much without living and dying with each play. Our offensive line was mediocre in 2009, and midway through 2010 it was worse. Harvin is great. Moss actually was reasonably effective on the field in the games I've seen (playing against three playoff teams, and Dallas IIRC), so his on-field results weren't bad for the trade, had he stayed with the team for a while. Asher Allen was in over his head - unless he was much better in 2011, the retirement isn't an issue for me. Etc.

The other thing a historical view can give you deals with things like this year's Peyton Manning situation. We did the Favre and McNabb thing in pretty rapid succession, and we all know how those worked out in the end. So that history factored into a run after Manning (as well as the realization that we were no longer "one player away").

I also think the Moss trade did work, in that it open up the offense a bit (and Favre finished his "preseason" warmup). The Vikes offense was basically unwatchable in the first three games. After the bye week and Moss, we moved the ball fairly well (but still lost close games on the road against tough teams). I realize that in the next game or two in line, that will come crashing down, but if you have the option to borrow a Larry Fitzgerald for half a season after losing your #1 receiver, I think it probably would help.

If you really want to spin your wheels in a tizzy, consider that is Shanc had been rewarded that TD and the Vikings went on to win, the Packers would have probably missed the playoffs and then not won their Superbowl. HAHA!

When I first read this thread I was like "who cares" but then I recognized the reality is there is nothign else to really talk about other than Jerome Felton and I'm amped for football season. Also I love the competitiveness of the NFL and enjoy theorizing about how the managers/coaches make decisions to win in such an environment, especially one that issues ultimate judgement for basically 20 straight weeks. Cool stuff IMO.

@Breeze: My issue with the McNabb sigining was two fold.
1.) It demonstrated a lack of power structure over personnel which has dogged this franchise for many years, but has been very apparent during the Wilf's ownership. It was obvious that the front office was torn on the move and Frasier won out, to the team's ultimate detriment.
2.) It demonstrated that the coaching staff had illusions about the competitivness of the roster vs. the rest of the division and the NFL. 3-13 says all that needs to be said about this one.

Actually both of these issues add up to why I'm happy with Spielman. (so far) He is at least sober about thier roster and has been a lone sober voice even during the Childress era regarding the state of the QB position. Now he needs to demonstrate an ability to improve the roster which isn't the same thing as being honest about it. It is a start though.

Yes. That thought came to me many a time that season, and then when I watched it again today. I don't hate GB, but I do begrudge them a trivially easy trip (how did they ever beat Caleb Haney in the NFC championship game?!?) to the Superbowl when many other years the field was much tougher.

I thought people might think so - "who cares". I'm sure a lot do. But they are just ignoring the thread, and we can go merrily along.

I just got through the "why Childress was fired" portion of the season - the dismissal of Moss, and the blowout losses to division rivals Green Bay and Chicago. Those two games were really weird. In the first halves of the games the Vikes actrually looked good, and I had to remind myself that, surely, they were going to lose them in the end (my recollection wasn't crystal clear). But the special teams mistakes and turnovers and red zone issues and inability to make short yardage runs did them in by the second halves. Frankly, they looked fine to me in the two blowouts between the 20's for the most part.

But by the end of the Childress era (and the Packers game) the Vikes were like 28th in red zone TD's and last in turnover ratio. Favre in particular was a turnover machine in 2010 - seemingly giving it up 3 times per game (I'm guessing, but at least 2.5). And they were trying to turn that into a winning season on the road against four strong playoff teams (Jets, Patriots, Bears, and Saints) and a home and away series against the eventual Superbowl champs. The really weird thing is that all those games (except the last Packers game) were close - so close that being just neutral in turnovers and being halfway between 2009's stunning red zone success and 2010's dismal failure would have been enough to have won a few of those tough road games.

I know - woulda, shoulda, coulda. But in some ways it's more annoying to watch a team come close to victory than to see them blown out in a game that wasn't close. I guess my biggest surprise in 2010 is seeing that they were really able to move the ball well, once Bret got into form (and before whatever injury ends his career) - I hadn't remembered that. Frankly, my recollection was that they just stunk on both sides of the ball (might get to be that way later...).

It has been an interesting journey. I'm into the Leslie Frazier era now. Do we all remember Frazier won his first two games? Sure, the Vikes finally stopped playing playoff teams, and got a couple easier games. And the results were predictable for a team that was expected to be one of the better teams - they beat the Redskins in Washington, and blew out the Bills at home.

But the cracks started to appear. Do you all remember them? Peterson had an ankle injury, limiting his time. Favre had a shoulder injury that took him out of the Bills game and prevented him from continuing his consecutive game streak. So we "got" to see Tavaris Jackson. And do you remember how he almost instantaneously got injured? Still, playing the Bills wasn't an issue, so everything was good.

Then we hit the trifecta. TJack playing, Peterson injured, and the Dome! The Dome collapsed and we were forced to play a home game in Detroit. I had forgotten. So with all of that, they end up getting just outclassed by the Giants (who proved to be a pretty strong team this year, eh?). Tjack looked like he hadn't learned anything from watching Favre.

Now I'm in the middle of the next game. We again "lose a home game", playing the NFC #1 seed Bears outdoors in the cold of a Minnesota winter at the U of M stadium. Well, in one sense, when a single loss or win in the season can mean a Superbowl (lots of WC teams winning now, had the Pack dropped any of their close wins in 2010 they wouldn't have made the playoffs, etc.) we might as well have all of the crap happen in a year where we weren't going anywhere. At this moment, the game is playing while I type. The Vikes have an early lead. I know it won't hold...

The same type of thing happened to the Pack that season. They played the Lions, who were still a struggling team. But Rodgers got injured, and the vaunted Packers offense scored all of 3 points with Matt Flynn at the helm.

Just me here I guess.

I am now into 2011. After 5 games, the Vikes actually had scored more points than they had given up. With their 1-4 record. I think we all remember losing four games when we had the lead in every one. And then the total blowout of the Cardinals. But then came the Bears, and Cutler seems to be the perfect QB whenever he faces us, so that was a blowout the other way.

I'm now at the end of the first Packers game. Now, we all know the Packers were the better team in 2011. But here we are, the 1-5 Vikings against the 6-0 Packers, and yet the Vikings have the ball with four minutes left in the game, with the chance to drive the field and win the game. Frankly, had we been 5-1 at the time, it wouldn't have been a bad situation to be in. The issue for the 2011 team is that they could never get those late drives going. They just couldn't close out a game.

I have always believed that the ability to string together a late drive is exceedingly quarterback dependent. It was always my issue with Warren Moon, who was very, very bad at it. It was something I always admired in Brad Johnson, who always found a way to move the chains at the end. I'm watching Ponder, in his first start, string a couple first downs in the potential game-winning drive. I know he fails in the end - as I'm watching the Vikes are about to punt.

QB play will be the determining factor in the Vikes success in 2012, plain and simple. The receivers are fine. The TE's are fine. The RB's are fine. The OL should be good. It all goes through Ponder.

I'm not sure I agree completely on the receivers and offensive line and possibly RB's as we don't know how AD is going to do when he starts running at full speed again. But while those other parts are less solid in my view, I agree completely that Ponder is the key to the whole thing.

I watched some of the games from last season that Ponder started, and one thing was notable, at least in my view. In that game against the Packers and in his earlier starts, Ponder was less inclined to take off down the field. He was still somewhat jumpy, but it seemed like when he scrambled he was scrambling to buy time to throw rather than to take off and run. In later games when he started to move he looked like he fully intended to run. There were several plays over that stretch where I thought he could have rolled out, bought more time, and gotten something down the field rather than run.

When I watched Ponder's Florida State highlights I knew he was mobile, but I didn't see him as a running QB in the mold of a Jake Locker or Cam Newton. He looked like a pocket passer who ran a pro-style offense. Based on how much he took off last year, though, I'd say he sure looked like a run-first QB. If I start seeing more of that this year I'd say the odds of him being the answer at QB for this team are very small. I can take slightly underthrown deep balls, the occasional bad pass, and missing some open guys, but one thing I just can't stand is to watch pro QB's take off down the field play after play. Ponder should watch film of good scrambling QB's. Guys like Tarkenton and even Favre who know how to buy time without taking off and who hurt defenses down the field as a result. Those simple decisions are often the difference between a key 1st down or big play and having to punt.

Ponder will obviously be a key factor and quarterback performance is almost always significant in the success or failure of an NFL offense but I think it's putting way too much emphasis/pressure on Ponder to say, at this point, that he will be THE determining factor in the Vikes success in 2012. After the poor offensive line play we saw last season and with the possibility of as many as 3 new starters on the offensive line, how can we possibly say with any certainty in June that the OL should be good? We haven't seen this OL in action yet so we don't even know if it will be better (although presumably, Kalil will be an upgrade at LT). The TEs shoud be fine as receivers but neither Carlson or Rudolph are known for their blocking so we could see a downgrade in pass protection from the TEs. At receiver, we're looking at Harvin, unproven rookies, mediocre veterans that were on the roster last year and Jerome Simpson, who has proven so reliable as an NFL WR that he'll miss the first 3 games of the season on a felony drug charge. He has big play potential but only 1 NFL season with more than 300 receiving yards. The Vikings may still be lacking a WR who can draw double coverage with any consistency. There are even question marks at RB, where AD's health is still a concern.The point I'm rambling toward is that there are still plenty of question marks on the offense around Ponder. How the OL, WRs, etc. perform will impact his performance so while I agree that Ponder will be A determining factor for the Vikings offense this year, I don't think he'll be THE determining factor for the 2012 Vikes. The rest of the offense and the defense will be a pretty big determining factors too. There are more than a few big questions about that defense and let's not forget a special teams unit that includes a new kicker.

I apologize if I'm belaboring the point. I just think far too much emphasis and responsibility are placed on NFL QBs these days. Having a great QB clearly makes a difference. All we have to do is look at Super Bowl winners over the years to see that but for all the ways a QB can help a team succeed, there are just as many ways that his ability to help can be compromised by those around him. Let's not put the success or failure of a team coming off a 3-13 season on one player's shoulders. That 3-13 record clearly indicates there were problems at far more than one position and I doubt the Vikes have solved those problems so effectively in one offseason that Ponder alone will be the determining factor in their success or failure this year.

Or solely on the players. This coaching staff has a lot to prove.

As far as the WR's go...

On the roster now, Minnesota has the 17th ranked first wide receiver (17th in yardage as the top WR on his team in 2011) in Percy Harvin. We have the 12th ranked second WR (12th in yardage among players who gained second most yardage on their team) in Jerome Simpson. We have the 14th ranked third WR in Michael Jenkins. And for two of those guys, they had incredibly ineffective QB's throwing to them. That's almost the definition of average. But if you consider how a good QB increases the yardage gained by his receivers, you can figure that a good QB would get you 40% more per receiver (think Sidney Rice and Bret Favre). Applying a 40% gain, we would have had the 6th (Harvin), the 15th (Aromashadu), and the 2nd best 3rd WR in Jenkins. So for me, Harvin, Jenkins, Simpson, and Aromashadu form a reasonable WR group, with a variety of skills and abilities, and one absolute stud in Harvin.

So I'm watching the middle of the 2011 season now. I posted this another place... but in watching in condensed mode, where it's just play after play and the game takes 20-25 minutes, you can see the patterns pretty easy. Ponder sucked last year. He was downright dreadful. In the first four games, he essentially never hit a WR in stride. He didn't even try most of the time. Finally, I think it was in the second Detroit game, he actually made the throw and was accurate. Unfortunately, he had already thrown a pick 6 (and another that should have been) had fumbled into the end zone for another defensive TD, and threw a pick that gave Detroit another FG. 17 gift points in a game that the Vikes lost by 6 to a playoff team on the road.

One bright spot - I hadn't seen Gearhart play. I was pretty down on the pick and said so here numerous times. But now that I've seen him playing in place of Peterson (the original high ankle sprain, not the knee injury), he's actually a decent player. He runs with some power and seems natural in the passing game. He'll never be a home run threat, but he is an effective runner. I would go so far as to say he's starting RB material (although I doubt he'd ever make the pro-bowl).

I've come around on Toby Gerhart, too. I still think it was ridiculous taking him in the second round and using two draft picks to do it, but he looks like a smart, solid back who is likely to have a long career as a backup. But the truth is, guys with his level of talent are a dime a dozen and usually found in the fourth round or later.

I think he's better than that. I could look up the stats, but it seemed like he was rushing for a pretty good average even though we all concede that the vikings offensive line was in the lower half of the league in effectiveness. OK. Now I've checked. He ended the year with 531 yards and a 4.9 yard per carry average. And added 23 catches for 190 yards. Extrapolate out how you choose for a full year, but the result is going to be that he's a bit better than a 4th rounder. Still maybe not worth trading up in the second round, when you already have Adrian Peterson, but as far as getting value for a second round pick, I now think he qualifies.

Youtube has the home game against Chicago, and the way 2009 ended almost makes it as bad as 1998. Everything cametogether that season, from Favre, Shaincoe, Rice, and Berrian having career years, to the defense playing nearly shut down when they played indoors. There's no doubt in my mind that the Vikings should have been in Miami that year rather than the New Orleans Cheaters. It is too bad that we choked the game away in NO