View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:14 am



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings! 
Author Message
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:54 am
Posts: 209
Post Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings!
This is the packers 3rd NFC championship appearance since favre carried the Vikings into that game! How can viking fans not be pissed off at the fact we wasted 8 years! 8 years and the packers will likely be heading to their second super bowl. The damn packers have more nfcc appearances than seasons the Vikings finished better than .500, hell of gm right there I tell yeah. The whole thing is a #### joke, only 3 out of 8 seasons finishing 8 and 8, or better, and that piece of #### gets to keep his job and waste another year for us. 2018 cannot get here soon enough so Ziggy will finally be forced to fix this madness!


Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:32 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4396
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
I'm not sure how to even react to this post. One, I don't think anyone is "happy" with how this year went so yeah, fans are ticked. Two, not sure why you're looking forward to 2018 for Zygi to fix this so-called "mess" you mention of. Because we have a bad OL the team is a mess now??

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:28 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
Posts: 208
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Does this mean you'll be a packers fan for the '17 season?


Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:45 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:52 pm
Posts: 748
Location: Charleston, SC
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Pissed off and zero interest are two different things. I may get pissed as a fan ( I do and I am), but I will NEVER have zero interest.

_________________
Fan of:
Hanahan Hawks
South Carolina Gamecocks
Minnesota Vikings
Charleston Battery
FC Bayern München
USMNT & Die Nationalmannschaft


Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:38 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
I have lost a lot of interest in the Vikings. If my interest level was 100 at its peak, I'm around a 15 now. Partly I've lost interest in football generally, the NFL specifically. (The game isn't the same, and it isn't much fun. The HS game is considerably better). Partly its the Vikings and the fan base that turned me off. At this point my main interest seems to be in story lines that grab my attention, players that interest me, and the general strategic dimension of the game...I missed several games this year without missing them at all (the last game I'd missed was nearly a decade ago). I cancelled my TV service and don't plan on having Sunday Ticket for the upcoming season. Perhaps I'll get pulled back in. Given my interests at this point I often find the offseason/FA/Draft to be the most interesting time of the NFL season. I could see myself leaving the Vikings and the NFL behind but to fully do it I think I'd need to find something to replace that role in my life. Not sure what that would be yet.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:21 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
I'm not sure how to even react to this post. One, I don't think anyone is "happy" with how this year went so yeah, fans are ticked. Two, not sure why you're looking forward to 2018 for Zygi to fix this so-called "mess" you mention of. Because we have a bad OL the team is a mess now??


I think he's suggesting Rick Spielman will be fired by then.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:23 am
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11329
Location: California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
My interest level is pretty low. I mean
two years to fix an OL and we keep paying
Kalil and drafting poorly on OL players.

Football used to be an escape from political
correctness and everything other than just
just raw physical hits. Now the league is full
Of idiot players using twitter and having me
first mentality. Losing refs, missing calls on
weekly basis.

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:59 am
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:54 am
Posts: 209
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
2009, we're a back foot throw away from the super bowl. The next season everything falls off the rails, the packers win a super bowl, and the so called rebuilding starts. We kept telling ourselves give Spielman time, he is building through the draft. Then we tell ourselves, Frazier was the problem, maybe the Vikings do better if Spielman has full control of the coaching staff. The Vikings let 8 years go bye and all we have to show for it are two winning seasons! meanwhile the packers have made the playoffs every year since. For the most part, Thompson has built a dynasty. While Spielman has had years of either multiple first round picks, and top ten picks, yet they still require 99% of his starters remain healthy just to finish with a winning record. The packers don't even need a healthy Rodgers for half a season, and they still find a way to back into the playoffs. I wasted 8 years following this mess, and I have zero interest in continuing. We have a few pieces to build around, but the scouting department on the offensive side needs to be gutted. Our special teams coach needs to take a hike(he should have made it known that Walsh and Locke had to go last season). Unfortunately nothing changes until it becomes clear to the wilf's that we've been spinning our wheels for 8 years and the fan base has had enough. It isn't like they're doing a gm carousel, they gave the guy at least 6 years, plus 3 years of full control, he has no one else to blame for this mess.

And we're not just a couple lineman away from the super bowl, we also need a place kicker, punter, mlb, running back, back up quarter back if teddy doesn't return. Plus 5 average starting lineman, and at least two or three backups. And then we'll be even with the packers. I doubt it is happening this off season, which is why I'm not wasting any time watching the same product next season.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:00 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
I think the business side of the NFL has gradually eroded it's entertainment value but it's still fun for me. What's less fun is watching the Vikes flail about trying to put together a winner and coming up far short of the mark too often. They've managed to make headlines for the wrong reasons too many times over the years too and that's no fun either.

My interest in the team hasn't waned but my enthusiasm for them varies and it's at a relatively low point right now. I absolutely understand Joe's frustration with Rick Spielman. I share some of FiestaVike's frustration with the fan base too, although I don't know if it's for the same reasons.

Mainly, I'm just tired of seeing the Vikings struggle while other teams succeed. Spielman's been botching his job(s) for too long and ownership needs to realize that and move on.

Let's not lose sight of what's fun about the Vikings either. For example, it's fun to watch an underdog player like Thielen work his way up the depth chart and put together a solid year like he just had. It's fun to watch Patterson take a kick return the distance.

I think we're all just ready to see that fun in the context of a great season with a truly satisfying ending. :)


Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:24 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:13 am
Posts: 7196
Location: Ft Walton Beach, Florida
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Speilman has done some great things, Just not enough of them to warrant him staying around. After 2-3 rebuilds it's time to let him go else we become the new Lions before too long


Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:30 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Here is a fun stat for you: Since 2001 the AFC champion has been one of three guys in all but two seasons: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Big Ben. The two exceptions were Rich Gannon in 2002 and Joe Flacco in 2012.

The NFC by contrast has had 12 different QBs represent it's champion in that time. The only repeats are Kurt Warner (with 2 different teams), Eli Manning, and Russel Wilson, each with 2 wins. IMO, this should offer us some consolation.

Another fun stat. Ages of the starting QBs in 2016:

Matt Ryan: 31 (FWIW, he is the odd guy here, has he taken the next step?)
Aaron Rogers: 33
Ben Roethlisburger: 34
Tom Brady: 39

All 4 guys are with the team that drafted them. (This isn't a shocker at all, if you had a franshise QB you'd pay him any sum to stay.) Another fun fact I'm not going to take the time to figure out: How many QBs have washed out of the league since Brady was drafted? How many are in their 8th or 9th season?

This is year where the veteran elite QBs are the kings. The three strongest defensive teams to make it to the playoffs were HOU, SEA and KC, all hampered by injuries to some of their key players (Watt, Houston, and Thomas.) This season represents a bit of a deviation from the past three where the dominant defense went to the SB. (and won it twice.) The question is whether this marks a change or if it is an aberration?

IMO, it is the latter. The Dallas team that went 13-3 this year was deeply flawed. The QBs we are seeing play next weekend are not doing anything new that they haven't done in the past. There have not been any major rule changes either. This is just a year where none of the defensive teams had enough balance to win the big games: SEA misses Lynch and Wilson was injured most of the season, losing Thomas in the playoffs hurt a lot. Oswieller is not playing well enough for HOU to win it all. KC didn't have enough offensive punch yesterday and their best defensive player, Houston, wasn't playing at 100%. CAR went into the tank after a dissappointing SB loss. DEN needs to find better QB play. Our poor Vikings were mired in the Injury abyss and their HC couldn't pull them out of the swamp once the losing started.

What will 2017 hold for the strong defensive teams?

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:14 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
mansquatch wrote:
Here is a fun stat for you: Since 2001 the AFC champion has been one of three guys in all but two seasons: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Big Ben. The two exceptions were Rich Gannon in 2002 and Joe Flacco in 2012.

The NFC by contrast has had 12 different QBs represent it's champion in that time. The only repeats are Kurt Warner (with 2 different teams), Eli Manning, and Russel Wilson, each with 2 wins. IMO, this should offer us some consolation.

Another fun stat. Ages of the starting QBs in 2016:

Matt Ryan: 31 (FWIW, he is the odd guy here, has he taken the next step?)
Aaron Rogers: 33
Ben Roethlisburger: 34
Tom Brady: 39

All 4 guys are with the team that drafted them. (This isn't a shocker at all, if you had a franshise QB you'd pay him any sum to stay.) Another fun fact I'm not going to take the time to figure out: How many QBs have washed out of the league since Brady was drafted? How many are in their 8th or 9th season?

This is year where the veteran elite QBs are the kings. The three strongest defensive teams to make it to the playoffs were HOU, SEA and KC, all hampered by injuries to some of their key players (Watt, Houston, and Thomas.) This season represents a bit of a deviation from the past three where the dominant defense went to the SB. (and won it twice.) The question is whether this marks a change or if it is an aberration?

IMO, it is the latter. The Dallas team that went 13-3 this year was deeply flawed. The QBs we are seeing play next weekend are not doing anything new that they haven't done in the past. There have not been any major rule changes either. This is just a year where none of the defensive teams had enough balance to win the big games: SEA misses Lynch and Wilson was injured most of the season, losing Thomas in the playoffs hurt a lot. Oswieller is not playing well enough for HOU to win it all. KC didn't have enough offensive punch yesterday and their best defensive player, Houston, wasn't playing at 100%. CAR went into the tank after a dissappointing SB loss. DEN needs to find better QB play. Our poor Vikings were mired in the Injury abyss and their HC couldn't pull them out of the swamp once the losing started.

What will 2017 hold for the strong defensive teams?


We don't know who will be in the Super Bowl this year but you've overlooked something significant above. Do you realize which team allowed the fewest average points per game this season? It was the Patriots (and by a significant margin). They allowed an average of 15.6 ppg and finished 8th in the defensive rankings by yardage allowed. It's also worth nothing that when they beat Seattle in the Super Bowl 2 years ago, they also had a top 10 defense in points allowed and were in the top 13 in the yardage rankings.

Pittsburgh's defense was 10th in ppg this season and 12th in the defensive rankings by yardage allowed so they too, are one of the better defensive teams in the league. Regardless of who comes out of the AFC, it will be a team with a good defense that had enough balance to win the big games.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:34 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
mansquatch wrote:
What will 2017 hold for the strong defensive teams?


Not much. Unless they have an offense that can move the ball.

Team balance still is the key. It's what the Pats have been doing lately and it sure works for them.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:59 am
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Sorry for your frustration joe. I'm an orphaned San Diego Chargers fan who's coming over to the Vikes so I guess I'll replace you in the ranks.

Clearly they aren't canning Spielman/Zimmer this offseason. I think that's the right call. Given the good that both have shown, I want to see if they can right the ship with another offseason (and maybe a little health on the roster). If it's more of the same, you fires them both and start over completely. That way, you avoid the mess of a HC working under a GM who didn't hire him or vice versa. I understand the criticisms of both of them, but given the success they had in 2015 I think it's fair to give them a mulligan after losing so many players (especially on offense, which is where they majorly underperformed). Spielman will have his work cut out for him trying to fix the OL this offseason. It isn't a great group-- not in FA or the draft. But that's his job so he better get it done.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:01 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
losperros wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
What will 2017 hold for the strong defensive teams?


Not much. Unless they have an offense that can move the ball.

Team balance still is the key. It's what the Pats have been doing lately and it sure works for them.


Yes... it helped Seattle get to back-to-back Super Bowls too.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:02 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Mothman wrote:
I think the business side of the NFL has gradually eroded it's entertainment value but it's still fun for me. What's less fun is watching the Vikes flail about trying to put together a winner and coming up far short of the mark too often.

My interest in the team hasn't waned but my enthusiasm for them varies and it's at a relatively low point right now.


My enthusiasm is at a low point for the Vikings but it's nothing compared to how irritated I am with them.

Rather than go into complaints I have posted elsewhere, I'll just say this team not only lacks quality and depth among some of the units (take the offensive line, for example), but it needs more coherent thinking from the top on down. That includes the GM and head coach.

As a fan, I can't help but be pissed off over the futility of this team. I'm not sure we're going to seen an end to it any time soon.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:20 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
This team went 11-5 in 2015. It went 8-8 this season amidst a tough injury situation. This year was a let down for sure, but there is plenty of reason to think we can be much more competitive in 2017. Plus we'll have a 3rd place schedule which should provide an easier path.

On the issue of PIT and NE, another thing both teams possess is a legitimate weapon at RB. Something of a rarity these days in the NFL...

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:21 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
mansquatch wrote:
This team went 11-5 in 2015. It went 8-8 this season amidst a tough injury situation. This year was a let down for sure, but there is plenty of reason to think we can be much more competitive in 2017. Plus we'll have a 3rd place schedule which should provide an easier path.


Unfortunately, I think there's at least as much reason to believe things could go in the other direction.

In my view, the Vikings had much more than just injury problems this season. Their defense started off so well that statistically, they were able to remain ranked relatively high but from the bye week onward, they struggled quite a bit. The offense was the usual mess but I think what really stands out, and was obscured a little by the meaningless win over the hapless Bears in the final game, is just how badly they checked out with their season on the line in December. Their effort against the Colts was inexcusable and the Packers mopped the floor with them at Lambeau. As I've said before, they were lucky to have two teams that ended up 3-13 on their schedule or they might not have won a single game after the bye.

When a team collapses like the Vikes did this season, I believe it's indicative of significant internal issues. 8-8 doesn't sound bad but a 3-8 finish after a 5-0 start is dreadful.

Quote:
On the issue of PIT and NE, another thing both teams possess is a legitimate weapon at RB. Something of a rarity these days in the NFL...


That's been a factor for quite a few teams that have made the conference championships and reached the Super Bowl in recent years.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:46 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
mansquatch wrote:
This team went 11-5 in 2015. It went 8-8 this season amidst a tough injury situation.


I'm so sick of hearing about the injuries. Some mediocre to bad OL players went down and even worse ones took their places.

Jim is right. There is a stack of things needing fixing on this team. The horrendous OL problem is just one item. A big one, yes, but still just one.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:50 pm
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
losperros wrote:
mansquatch wrote:
This team went 11-5 in 2015. It went 8-8 this season amidst a tough injury situation.


I'm so sick of hearing about the injuries. Some mediocre to bad OL players went down and even worse ones took their places.

Jim is right. There is a stack of things needing fixing on this team. The horrendous OL problem is just one item. A big one, yes, but still just one.


I totally get being sick of hearing about injuries. Because you're right, there are other issues to fix for sure (e.g. the players not carrying out Zimmer's gameplan or the initial quality of the OL before they were even decimated by injury). Injuries can become a bit of a catch all excuse for anything and everything. That said, it can also be completely ignored by some who take on that "everyone has injuries" mentality. But the truth is that not everyone has injuries of the same magnitude or at the same rate. The teams that luck out with health tend to have better seasons, and vice versa. It's not an excuse for bad play, but it absolutely is one valid reason for why a season may go south despite the best efforts of everyone involved. The Vikes were 12th in Footballoutsider's Adjusted Games Lost in 2015 and 8th in 2014. I'll be interested to see where they land for 2016.

Suffice it to say, if they have better luck that way in 2017 AND they address many of their issues that plagued them otherwise, there should be a bounce back.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:31 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
Posts: 208
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?

So the Texans would've beaten the Raiders if Carr was playing.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Dmizzle0 wrote:
So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?

So the Texans would've beaten the Raiders if Carr was playing.


So the Vikings starting OL players weren't good from the get-go.

So the backup OL players were even worse, with Clemmings being a nightmare.

So the Vikings could and should have addressed the OL needs during the last offseason, but they didn't.

So are we talking about Carr, the Texans and the Raiders, or the Vikings?


Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:04 pm
Profile
Backup
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:00 pm
Posts: 62
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Dmizzle0 wrote:
So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?

So the Texans would've beaten the Raiders if Carr was playing.


I think you have a find a balance. Injuries need to be factored as reasons for success/failure, without being a crutch for excusing all the issues on the team.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:04 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Banquo wrote:
Dmizzle0 wrote:
So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?

So the Texans would've beaten the Raiders if Carr was playing.


I think you have a find a balance. Injuries need to be factored as reasons for success/failure, without being a crutch for excusing all the issues on the team.


Agreed. :rock:


Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:05 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:44 pm
Posts: 3213
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Really, injuries were not an issue?

So Kalil/Smith = Clemmings/Sirles?

RB: Asiata = Mckinnon = Adrian Petersen Seriously?

I humbly conclude that unless you can answer Yes to both of the above comparisons, then injuries were an issue.

Two things are just astonishing to me right now given all the doom and gloom around here.
1.) This roster went 11-5 in 2015. How is the 2017 roster worse than 2015?
2.) Sam Bradford just did all the things we were wondering if TB could do at QB and he did it with a worst OL in 2016 than TB had in 2015.

You should let that 2nd point sink in a little...

There are two major questions for this roster going into 2017:
1.) Can they find answers at Tackle that are better than Sirles/Clemmings? Clemmings was historically bad which means it shouldn't be hard to find an upgrade. The question is how much of an upgrade.
2.) Who is the RB?

If they can find competitive answers then we should see a lot out of this team in 2017.

_________________
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi


Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:10 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
mansquatch wrote:
Really, injuries were not an issue?

So Kalil/Smith = Clemmings/Sirles?

RB: Asiata = Mckinnon = Adrian Petersen Seriously?

I humbly conclude that unless you can answer Yes to both of the above comparisons, then injuries were an issue.

Two things are just astonishing to me right now given all the doom and gloom around here.
1.) This roster went 11-5 in 2015. How is the 2017 roster worse than 2015?
2.) Sam Bradford just did all the things we were wondering if TB could do at QB and he did it with a worst OL in 2016 than TB had in 2015.

You should let that 2nd point sink in a little...

There are two major questions for this roster going into 2017:
1.) Can they find answers at Tackle that are better than Sirles/Clemmings? Clemmings was historically bad which means it shouldn't be hard to find an upgrade. The question is how much of an upgrade.
2.) Who is the RB?

If they can find competitive answers then we should see a lot out of this team in 2017.


Its harder to blame injuries when signing multiple injury riddled struggling linemen was the answer to your O line problems. Relying on a past 30 RB to shoulder the load for your O is also just asking for it.

Your trying to compare rosters in terms of e value and that is clearly a non sensical way of evaluating a team, the Broncos, Panthers and Cardinals, none of those teams changed significantly from last year.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:17 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Dmizzle0 wrote:
So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?


mansquatch wrote:
Really, injuries were not an issue?


Nobody said injuries weren't an issue. I wrote that the Vikings had much more than just injury problems this season and Craig wrote that he is "sick of hearing about the injuries". Neither of those comments is a statement that injuries didn't have an impact on the team this year. I think everybody acknowledges that they impacted the team. There are just differences in the degree to which people are willing to use them to explain the overall results.

Quote:
Two things are just astonishing to me right now given all the doom and gloom around here.
1.) This roster went 11-5 in 2015. How is the 2017 roster worse than 2015?


How will it be better than 2016? ;)

The 2017 roster hasn't been assembled yet so we don't know if it will be better or worse than in 2015. One obvious way it could be worse is with the potential absence of Peterson, who was the league's leading rusher in 2015. Another is that players like Newman, Greenway, Munnerlyn, Floyd and Robison could all be gone (and they all made very positive contributions in 2015). In 2016, Barr didn't play up to the standard he set for himself in 2015. Will he be better in 2017? Who's playing on the o-line?

The 2017 Vikings will probably look considerably different than the 2015 Vikings.

Quote:
2.) Sam Bradford just did all the things we were wondering if TB could do at QB and he did it with a worst OL in 2016 than TB had in 2015.

You should let that 2nd point sink in a little...

There are two major questions for this roster going into 2017:
1.) Can they find answers at Tackle that are better than Sirles/Clemmings? Clemmings was historically bad which means it shouldn't be hard to find an upgrade. The question is how much of an upgrade.
2.) Who is the RB?


Those are good questions but I see considerably more than 2 major questions. For example:

1.) The OL has more than just Tackle issues. How much push did people see from the interior of the line on running plays? I saw very little. How much pressure did the interior allow (especially Fusco)? At least 3 positions on the OL are huge question marks, arguably without anybody currently on the team that could qualify as an average or above average NFL starter at those positions. Berger's at an age where his play could start to drop at any time and frankly, he might be the most overrated player on the team right now.

2.) Can they finally improve their run defense?

3.) Who will be playing slot corner and if it's not Munnerlyn, will they be up to the task? Can Waynes adequately replace Newman as a starter? If Newman and Munnerlyn are gone, will the Vikes be able to solidify the depth behind the younger players moving up the depth chart or will they be more vulnerable to injuries in the secondary?

4.) Why did the overall performance of the defense fall off so much as last season progressed?

5.) Who will be kicking for the Vikings in 2017 and will they be able to make extra points with any consistency?

6.) Do they really have a good enough player in the safety spot next to Smith? Sendejo has his positive moments but when Smith's not on the field, attacking the Vikes safeties works way too well.

Some of those questions are more significant than others but several could have a substantial impact on wins and losses. I think the really big question is: what went wrong in that locker room in 2016? Clearly, something did.

Quote:
If they can find competitive answers then we should see a lot out of this team in 2017.


They have enough question marks and they're facing enough potential change that things could go either way, up or down. The 3-8 finish and the back-to-back blowout losses with the team's playoff hopes literally on the line are alarming. The team's 8-8 record is not indicative of the quality of football they played during the last 2.5 months of the season. I think there's a difference between an up and coming team that climbs from 6-10 one year to 8-8 the next and a team like the Vikes, that follows an 11 win season with a 5-0 start followed by a collapse resulting in an 8-8 finish.

EDIT: Just to be clear, many of the questions could be answered positively and the team could have a great 2017 season. My intention is not to rule that out. My point is the team faces some big problems and has some potentially new issues on the horizon while still needing to deal with their current issues. Considering their downhill trajectory, the climb back to the playoffs might be steep.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:55 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:47 am
Posts: 10040
Location: Burbank, California
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Mothman wrote:
EDIT: Just to be clear, many of the questions could be answered positively and the team could have a great 2017 season. My intention is not to rule that out. My point is the team faces some big problems and has some potentially new issues on the horizon while still needing to deal with their current issues. Considering their downhill trajectory, the climb back to the playoffs might be steep.


I agree with all the above. I'll also admit things could go surprisingly positive and that would be great. Who knows right now?

That said, speaking of the downhill trajectory being a tough climb back, you know what still bothers me? The game against the Colts. I think it was an indicator that much more than a few roster changes were wrong with the team. And certainly more than just injuries. I've got a feeling there is a lot of fixing needed on the Vikings and maybe it can't all be done in a hurry.


Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:36 pm
Profile
Veteran

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
Posts: 208
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
I think people misunderstood the reasoning for my reply. Of course the vikings have problems. I just dont understand the comments on people that want to jump of the ship after this season given the circumstances.


Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:57 am
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Dmizzle0 wrote:
I think people misunderstood the reasoning for my reply. Of course the vikings have problems. I just dont understand the comments on people that want to jump of the ship after this season given the circumstances.


I think they're just discouraged and some probably see the circumstances differently than others.

I'm not about to jump ship but I'm definitely feeling very discouraged.


Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:18 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.