Which would be better?

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Vikingsfan4321
Starter
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:22 pm

Which would be better?

Post by Vikingsfan4321 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:54 am

I think we an all agree that although the Vikings are markedly improved in several important areas, the playoffs are still a year or so away from being a concrete reality. So my question is this; In your opinion which would be better for the the team? A season where we show improvement go say, 8-8 or so and show general improvement in all areas BUT potentially miss out on an absolute stud playmaker in the draft. Or another 3-13 year where we are able to draft in the top 5 again And bring in another swathe of top tier talent? Obviously as Vikings fans we hope they win every game they play. I am just wondering which you think would lead to further success next season

For the sake of this question lets assume that if you say the 3-13 season, it wasn't on ponder and he is worth giving one more year.
0 x

User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 37386
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Mothman » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:21 am

Vikingsfan4321 wrote:I think we an all agree that although the Vikings are markedly improved in several important areas, the playoffs are still a year or so away from being a concrete reality. So my question is this; In your opinion which would be better for the the team? A season where we show improvement go say, 8-8 or so and show general improvement in all areas BUT potentially miss out on an absolute stud playmaker in the draft. Or another 3-13 year where we are able to draft in the top 5 again And bring in another swathe of top tier talent? Obviously as Vikings fans we hope they win every game they play. I am just wondering which you think would lead to further success next season

For the sake of this question lets assume that if you say the 3-13 season, it wasn't on ponder and he is worth giving one more year.

I think the 8-8 season would be better. The goal is to get better and a 5 game improvement in the win column would be a huge step forward. It wouldn't drop them so far in the draft that they couldn't still bring in some excellent young players next spring.

Jim
0 x

User avatar
losperros
Commissioner
Posts: 10041
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Burbank, California

Re: Which would be better?

Post by losperros » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:01 am

I'm always for the team winning. I just can't root for them to lose, even if it means better draft picks.

So I'm definitely going with the 8-8 and improvement.
0 x

User avatar
Eli
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7946
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:52 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Eli » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:57 am

Vikingsfan4321 wrote:In your opinion which would be better for the the team? A season where we show improvement go say, 8-8 or so and show general improvement in all areas BUT potentially miss out on an absolute stud playmaker in the draft. Or another 3-13 year where we are able to draft in the top 5 again
Take the 8-8. It would mean that you're definitely on the upswing and may not _need_ a top five player to be a championship team. You could easily be 12-4 the following year with the same squad.
0 x

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5731
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Which would be better?

Post by VikingLord » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:44 pm

I think it will be hard for the Vikings to finish with just 3 wins again. They do play in what is shaping up to be the best division in football, so I could see it happening, but for them to get just 3 wins would be a sign of serious issues and probably result in the outright replacement of most of the coaching staff and probably Spielman along with it. That would be a level of failure that is unprecedented in Vikings history and indicate a major flaw in "the plan" to get the team back on the right track.

As far as what I would want, right now I want them to go 16-0 and win the Superbowl convincingly. But if they end up near the end of the season needing a few losses to bump up their draft position, then I'd probably feel the same way I felt last year - the best long-term view at that point is to rest most of your core players and get your younger guys on the field, not to throw games per se, but to start figuring out what needs to happen to maximize your chances of improving the team for the next season.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6941
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:48 pm

I can't believe we're already talking about whether it would be best to tank games to improve draft position.

Going 3-13 is NEVER good.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Demi » Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:06 am

Going 3-13 is NEVER good.
It is when it means you get Peyton Manning in the following draft. :lol:
0 x

User avatar
Texas Vike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3619
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Texas Vike » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:49 am

Demi wrote: It is when it means you get Peyton Manning in the following draft. :lol:
But the other side of that is you can also get Ryan Leaf.

No draft spot is a guarantee; furthermore, AD and Percy were not picked in the top 5. In my opinion, you have to hope we see improvement and then that we draft well regardless of where we are picking at.
0 x

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Demi » Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:56 pm

But the other side of that is you can also get Ryan Leaf.
How is that the other side? Obviously you can always screw up a pick. But they won three games, and got Manning. The Chargers won more...and got Leaf.
0 x

User avatar
Purple bruise
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Purple bruise » Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:11 pm

Texas Vike wrote: But the other side of that is you can also get Ryan Leaf.

No draft spot is a guarantee; furthermore, AD and Percy were not picked in the top 5. In my opinion, you have to hope we see improvement and then that we draft well regardless of where we are picking at.
You are 100% correct. Or they could get Vince Young, David Carr, Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russel etc etc.
They have, in my opinion , already found their QB and got him as a 12th pick :rock:
0 x
Do not mistake KINDNESS for WEAKNESS!


Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6941
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:18 pm

The point is -- even if you concede that it's beneficial to tank games late in a losing season in order to improve draft position (I don't) ... it's freaking AUGUST.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
Just Me
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6095
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Just Me » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:55 pm

Demi wrote: How is that the other side? Obviously you can always screw up a pick. But they won three games, and got Manning. The Chargers won more...and got Leaf.
They picked Leaf. The Vikings also picked Moss at 21 that year. The point is: (as you correctly identified) is that you can always "screw up" a pick. Given this is a possibility: Why would one want to deliberately lose games since the draft position is not a guarantee of a successful pick? It's not like there was a clear choice here at the time (hindsight is always 20/20).

Manning and Leaf were widely considered to be the two best players available in the 1998 draft and scouts and analysts debated which should be selected first. Many advocated for Leaf, his stronger arm and greater potential, while others regarded Manning as the more mature player and the safer pick. However, most observers expected it would not greatly matter whether a team selected Manning or Leaf. I think that was the original point.
0 x
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23761
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Demi » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:02 pm

Overall my point was 8-8 showing improvement would have meant the Colts never get a ring. And don't get a top 10 all time quarterback for over a decade. Going 3-13 means we got a franchise left tackle. 2-14 and we'd be in even a better position to rebuild. There are times when that top draft pick has clearly made a significant difference to a franchise. And the only reason they had the opportunity was because of that 3-13 record.
0 x

User avatar
Just Me
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6095
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by Just Me » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:46 pm

Demi wrote:Overall my point was 8-8 showing improvement would have meant the Colts never get a ring. And don't get a top 10 all time quarterback for over a decade. Going 3-13 means we got a franchise left tackle. 2-14 and we'd be in even a better position to rebuild. There are times when that top draft pick has clearly made a significant difference to a franchise. And the only reason they had the opportunity was because of that 3-13 record.
That's true, but it's because you have the ability to know in hindsight that Manning was the better pick. To make my point: Look at the number 1 pick in the 1999 draft (Tim Couch). Cleveland's 1st overall pick didn't help them much get their 'franchise' QB. (they didn't have the worst record in 1998 - they were 'resurrected' in 1999 after the Browns (Ravens) moved to Baltimore). Incidentally, the Vikings got Culpepper at number 11 that year. I can't argue the fact that the Colts took Peyton with the 1st pick, but if the Chargers had the first pick in 98, they might well have still picked Leaf. In 1999, Donavan McNabb was the #2 pick.

In 2000 the first QB went at 18 (Chad Pennington). The first pick was Defensive End Courtney Brown. (There was a real impact player /sarcasm) Players of note drafted after him inlcude Brian Urlacher at #9.

2001: #1 was Michael Vick (but Drew Brees went at #32)

2002: #1 was QB David Carr, and in an ironic twist, one of the higher draft picks in recent memory for the Vikes (at #7) was McKinnie. Joey Harrington went at #3.

2003: #1 was QB Carson Palmer. (Troy Polamalu went at #16)

2004: #1 was Eli Manning. #11 was Ben Roethlisberger (in between them at #4 was Phillip Rivers).

I could go on, but the point is that the draft can be a "crapshoot" and that talent (and busts) can be found at any position, so why would we "tank" a game to get a higher draft pick that might not pan out.
0 x
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!

User avatar
vikeinmontana
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm

Re: Which would be better?

Post by vikeinmontana » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:22 pm

i just want wins baby! i don't expect a ton from this team this season but i don't see it as impossible that they win 3-4 more than last season.
0 x
i'm ready for a beer.

Post Reply