Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings!

[losperros]

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.

[mansquatch]

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...

[Mothman]

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.

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.

[losperros]

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.

[Banquo]

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.

[Dmizzle0]

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.

[losperros]

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?

[Banquo]

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.

[losperros]

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.

[mansquatch]

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.

[Jordysghost]

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.

[Mothman]

So injuries wasn't at fault? They don't affect the chemistry of the team?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[losperros]

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.

[Dmizzle0]

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.

[Mothman]

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.