View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:58 pm



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

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
chicagopurple wrote:
Those of us who have been viking fans for 3-4 decades are more likely to be utterly disgusted and fed up. We have seen countless cycles like this. In reality, we are no where near being a contender. The OL is a wreck, and NO, injuries are not to blame there as virtually ALL the starters, their replacements, and the guys off the street that were allowed to put on the purple this year were ALL sub-standard. It is a HUGE problem and pretty much all the current OL players need to go.
We are about to see AP leave, having wasted a Hall Of Fame RB Career thanks to various owners and coaches who couldnt put a winner around him.
Our Defense is very good but is only aging as we spin our wheels on offense.
Our Coach seemed to regress this year.
The rest of the league is also looking for OL help so the picking will be slim.
It looks pretty crappy and I am tired of 40 yrs of mediocrity.


It's the ride that I enjoy, not the destination. I've been a fan since I can remember (74?)

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:04 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
chicagopurple wrote:
The Steelers have had 3 coaches in the last 50 yrs......we go thru that many every 3-4 yrs.
The Patriots also are rock solid on coaching.
Ownership never changes in those town


Hmmmmm. I don't hear too many people here suggesting the ownership commit to Zimmer. All I hear are fans questioning if the Vikings hired the right coach. Maybe we all need to change our mentality and show patience in building a team rather than demanding immediate results just as S197 said in another thread.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:47 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
808vikingsfan wrote:
chicagopurple wrote:
The Steelers have had 3 coaches in the last 50 yrs......we go thru that many every 3-4 yrs.
The Patriots also are rock solid on coaching.
Ownership never changes in those town


Hmmmmm. I don't hear too many people here suggesting the ownership commit to Zimmer. All I hear are fans questioning if the Vikings hired the right coach. Maybe we all need to change our mentality and show patience in building a team rather than demanding immediate results just as S197 said in another thread.


An extended commitment to a head coach (or GM!) without results to justify it is just foolish and we're 3 years into the Zimmer era now so we're way past demanding "immediate" results. I recognize the value of continuity and that's why, when Zimmer was hired, I said I hoped he'd get at least 4 years to show what he can do. He's going to get those 4 years (and he should) but further commitment beyond that should absolutely be conditional on results. Everybody should question whether the Vikings have hired the right head coach until it's crystal clear that they actually hired the right head coach. We've seen 3 straight seasons of lousy, bottom 15% of the league-level offense with little-to-no-improvement. We've seen almost no improvement in the run defense either and the Vikes just followed a playoff season with a train wreck of a season. At this point, anybody not wondering if Zimmer is the right head coach for the job might have an excess of patience. :)


Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:15 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:34 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
i'm on board with all of the frustration. someone used the word patience, well what in the world do you think us fan's have been trying to be for years? at least in the 90's and early 2,000's the team had carter and moss and were entertaining to watch. watching this vikings offense for the past 5 years has been utterly brutal. they cannot score touchdowns consistently and zimmer has had plenty of time now to at least put an offense together. i only watched two games the entire second half of the season, the thanksgiving game (in which we could only muster one rushing td) and the dallas game only because i was stuck at a hotel and was flying out the next day. we had one meaningless touchdown at the very end of regulation. i had no interest in watching an offense that putrid and i agree there is no way we can get entirely new offensive line in one off season. it will take a ton of creativity and also a ton of spending and i'm not sure we have either. we made some picks that simply didn't pan out. you don't draft two receivers in the first round in the past 4 years and get these kinds of results. how many picks did we trade for patterson? i don't care if it is coaching, lack of creativity on offense, or what anymore but this guy was drafted to be a number 1 receiver and so was treadwell. first round picks are supposed to be productive in the nfl. the two of them combined are at best a number 2 receiver. think if we had used some of those picks for patterson on linemen back then; i don't the situation would be this dire regarding the line.


Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:19 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
chicagopurple wrote:
Those of us who have been viking fans for 3-4 decades are more likely to be utterly disgusted and fed up. We have seen countless cycles like this. In reality, we are no where near being a contender. The OL is a wreck, and NO, injuries are not to blame there as virtually ALL the starters, their replacements, and the guys off the street that were allowed to put on the purple this year were ALL sub-standard. It is a HUGE problem and pretty much all the current OL players need to go.
We are about to see AP leave, having wasted a Hall Of Fame RB Career thanks to various owners and coaches who couldnt put a winner around him.
Our Defense is very good but is only aging as we spin our wheels on offense.
Our Coach seemed to regress this year.
The rest of the league is also looking for OL help so the picking will be slim.
It looks pretty crappy and I am tired of 40 yrs of mediocrity.


We were a contender last year and had a mediocre to below average OL. So how does that happen yet you sit here and act like the world is crumbling around us?? We have a weak OL. What else is "weak"? RB?? Ok but what else? Not QB, not TE, not WR, not this defense. You're acting like this is the 2011 Vikings that had the 3rd overall pick. Nobody is happy about what happened this year. We are all frustrated. But to act like this team has no chance because we're going into the offseason with a weak OL is pretty sad if you ask me. It's not going to be a one year fix but if we can bring in some key pieces and sprinkle in some depth this offseason, I'm not really sure what you're worried about. I've been a fan of this team for 20+ years, have seen a lot of heartbreaks, but I'm not going to sit here and say this TEAM is a wreck because of an OL problem. That's just an overreaction at its finest if you ask me. If you recall, back in 2012 we didnt have many building blocks and had a horrible defense. This team is above and beyond better than that one.

Pretty much all the current OL need to go?? Come on dude. Just take some time and read what you're saying.

_________________
Image


Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:37 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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
We were a contender last year and had a mediocre to below average OL. So how does that happen yet you sit here and act like the world is crumbling around us?? We have a weak OL. What else is "weak"? RB?? Ok but what else? Not QB, not TE, not WR, not this defense. You're acting like this is the 2011 Vikings that had the 3rd overall pick. Nobody is happy about what happened this year. We are all frustrated. But to act like this team has no chance because we're going into the offseason with a weak OL is pretty sad if you ask me. It's not going to be a one year fix but if we can bring in some key pieces and sprinkle in some depth this offseason, I'm not really sure what you're worried about. I've been a fan of this team for 20+ years, have seen a lot of heartbreaks, but I'm not going to sit here and say this TEAM is a wreck because of an OL problem.That's just an overreaction at its finest if you ask me. If you recall, back in 2012 we didn't have many building blocks and had a horrible defense. This team is above and beyond better than that one.


Those of us with deeper concerns think the Vikings have more than just an OL problem. That simple explanation for their problems is your diagnosis, not a universally accepted explanation.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:23 am
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
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
We were a contender last year and had a mediocre to below average OL. So how does that happen yet you sit here and act like the world is crumbling around us?? We have a weak OL. What else is "weak"? RB?? Ok but what else? Not QB, not TE, not WR, not this defense. You're acting like this is the 2011 Vikings that had the 3rd overall pick. Nobody is happy about what happened this year. We are all frustrated. But to act like this team has no chance because we're going into the offseason with a weak OL is pretty sad if you ask me. It's not going to be a one year fix but if we can bring in some key pieces and sprinkle in some depth this offseason, I'm not really sure what you're worried about. I've been a fan of this team for 20+ years, have seen a lot of heartbreaks, but I'm not going to sit here and say this TEAM is a wreck because of an OL problem.That's just an overreaction at its finest if you ask me. If you recall, back in 2012 we didn't have many building blocks and had a horrible defense. This team is above and beyond better than that one.


Those of us with deeper concerns think the Vikings have more than just an OL problem. That simple explanation for their problems is your diagnosis, not a universally accepted explanation.


Of course because we came off a playoff year to going 8-8 and everyone thinks the sky is falling. You think it's coaches, Spielman, ownership, yada yada yada. Yet many of these fans that have "deeper concerns", KNOW that this team would probably be better than 8-8 if it wasn't for injuries to the offense. GB would have probably had a better record if they didn't lose their whole secondary. However, my thing is, it's very tough to overcome. Just because we have an injury riddled season, now everyone is going to question Zim, Spielman and so on. The OL has been an issue for some time now yeah I get that. But we also wouldn't have our defense if we went in the other direction. And the Spielman haters would be saying the same thing they're saying now. It's pretty easy to sit behind a computer screen and say he should have done this or done that

Seattle has a pathetic OL. Maybe just as bad or worse than ours. But a good defense. Is anyone questioning Schneider for "ignoring" the OL?? I sure haven't heard anything. Personally, I think some of you are blowing things way out of proportion. 40 years of frustration yeah I get that. Like I said, nobody is happy about what happened. But if I was actually worried about Spielman or Zim, I'd have no problem saying it. But I have no worries whatsoever. So I'll leave it at agree to disagree

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:55 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:
Of course because we came off a playoff year to going 8-8 and everyone thinks the sky is falling.


No , that's how you're choosing to characterize and dismiss the concerns being expressed.

Quote:
You think it's coaches, Spielman, ownership, yada yada yada. Yet many of these fans that have "deeper concerns", KNOW that this team would probably be better than 8-8 if it wasn't for injuries to the offense.


I don't think anybody can truly know that but even if we assume it's true, being better than 8-8 doesn't make them a serious Super Bowl contender or even mean they're truly on the road to becoming a serious SB contender.

Quote:
GB would have probably had a better record if they didn't lose their whole secondary. However, my thing is, it's very tough to overcome. Just because we have an injury riddled season, now everyone is going to question Zim, Spielman and so on. The OL has been an issue for some time now yeah I get that. But we also wouldn't have our defense if we went in the other direction.


Who cares if the team isn't good enough as a whole? Too many people have stars in their eyes over the defense. A good defense is 1/3 of a good team.

Quote:
Seattle has a pathetic OL. Maybe just as bad or worse than ours. But a good defense. Is anyone questioning Schneider for "ignoring" the OL??


Seattle built a Super Bowl-winning team that was good enough to almost win 2 in a row. They ran into post-championship cap issues because they had built an excellent team and they couldn't afford to pay all the talent they had assembled. That's very different from the Vikings situation. the Vikes have the problems without the accomplishments.

Quote:
Personally, I think some of you are blowing things way out of proportion. 40 years of frustration yeah I get that.


It's not just 40 years of frustration. It's 40+ years of observation. It's perspective. It doesn't seem to occur to you that some of us look at this team, based on that experience, and perhaps see things you don't see, see patterns and problems indicative of the same struggles that have kept the Vikes out of the Super Bowl for the past 4 decades and seem likely to keep them out of it in the near future too.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:25 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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:

We were a contender last year and had a mediocre to below average OL. So how does that happen yet you sit here and act like the world is crumbling around us?? We have a weak OL. What else is "weak"? RB?? Ok but what else? Not QB, not TE, not WR, not this defense. You're acting like this is the 2011 Vikings that had the 3rd overall pick. Nobody is happy about what happened this year. We are all frustrated. But to act like this team has no chance because we're going into the offseason with a weak OL is pretty sad if you ask me. It's not going to be a one year fix but if we can bring in some key pieces and sprinkle in some depth this offseason, I'm not really sure what you're worried about. I've been a fan of this team for 20+ years, have seen a lot of heartbreaks, but I'm not going to sit here and say this TEAM is a wreck because of an OL problem. That's just an overreaction at its finest if you ask me. If you recall, back in 2012 we didnt have many building blocks and had a horrible defense. This team is above and beyond better than that one.

Pretty much all the current OL need to go?? Come on dude. Just take some time and read what you're saying.


PHP it is time for the offseason hiatus, trust me. I've been killing that horse for over 2 months and no one cares. When they win a bunch of games next year no one will remember us being the voices of confidence. Time to go fishing my friend.

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


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:32 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:
PHP it is time for the offseason hiatus, trust me. I've been killing that horse for over 2 months and no one cares. When they win a bunch of games next year no one will remember us being the voices of confidence. Time to go fishing my friend.


I remember you guys being the voices of confidence prior to this season too. :(


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:45 am
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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
We were a contender last year and had a mediocre to below average OL. So how does that happen yet you sit here and act like the world is crumbling around us?? We have a weak OL. What else is "weak"? RB?? Ok but what else? Not QB, not TE, not WR, not this defense. You're acting like this is the 2011 Vikings that had the 3rd overall pick. Nobody is happy about what happened this year. We are all frustrated. But to act like this team has no chance because we're going into the offseason with a weak OL is pretty sad if you ask me. It's not going to be a one year fix but if we can bring in some key pieces and sprinkle in some depth this offseason, I'm not really sure what you're worried about. I've been a fan of this team for 20+ years, have seen a lot of heartbreaks, but I'm not going to sit here and say this TEAM is a wreck because of an OL problem.That's just an overreaction at its finest if you ask me. If you recall, back in 2012 we didn't have many building blocks and had a horrible defense. This team is above and beyond better than that one.


Those of us with deeper concerns think the Vikings have more than just an OL problem. That simple explanation for their problems is your diagnosis, not a universally accepted explanation.


Of course because we came off a playoff year to going 8-8 and everyone thinks the sky is falling. You think it's coaches, Spielman, ownership, yada yada yada. Yet many of these fans that have "deeper concerns", KNOW that this team would probably be better than 8-8 if it wasn't for injuries to the offense. GB would have probably had a better record if they didn't lose their whole secondary. However, my thing is, it's very tough to overcome. Just because we have an injury riddled season, now everyone is going to question Zim, Spielman and so on. The OL has been an issue for some time now yeah I get that. But we also wouldn't have our defense if we went in the other direction. And the Spielman haters would be saying the same thing they're saying now. It's pretty easy to sit behind a computer screen and say he should have done this or done that

Seattle has a pathetic OL. Maybe just as bad or worse than ours. But a good defense. Is anyone questioning Schneider for "ignoring" the OL?? I sure haven't heard anything. Personally, I think some of you are blowing things way out of proportion. 40 years of frustration yeah I get that. Like I said, nobody is happy about what happened. But if I was actually worried about Spielman or Zim, I'd have no problem saying it. But I have no worries whatsoever. So I'll leave it at agree to disagree


I just want to clarify PHP, while i suspect you threw that comment about GB's secondary in there to dissuade me from going at your idea that the Vikes would have a better record with less injuries to your O line, Id like to make it clear that I never disputed that, only the notion that it was the sole problem or reason for concern.

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


Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:50 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
Posts: 7667
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Some great posts, Jim. Finding myself agreeing with most of them.

I would start by looking at Rick first (who I have a feeling wont be here in 2018 if we dont WIN a playoff game), then Zimmer, coaches, assistant coaches, etc., and make sure everyone is on the same page as to our main schemes on on O and D, and practice them constantly. AD is going to be gone (or maybe not, who knows), so lets be ready for that. I dont like our RB's, so I say we get rid of then, convert Line to a FB, short yardage. And get a late TE that can block, and be a power runner/and good on screens.
(BTW, whatever happened to Pruitt? I really like that guy as a receiver and hard saw him.)

Barr needs to get his head in the game. Treadwell need to put in more effort with Bradford. We would have a good, not average but good, passing game if Treadwell plays to expectations. And the Oline improves. I hope everyone know we cant ffix this Oline in 1 year. But I think in 2 we can.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:29 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1269
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
I would totally disagree with Percy's assertion that we were a "contender" in recent seasons. We were able to win a division, but we werent going to win a championship. We have had NO OL, a middling series of QBs, and a messed up RB situation. We were not, are not, and are not building towards being a real contender. The quality teams of the league are still head and shoulders ahead of the Vikings in talent, management, and coaching.....its a brutal truth.

After 40-50 yrs of Viking fandom, winning a meaningless wildcare/division with no real chance of a Super Bowl is not good enough and we arent even realistically able to expect even that goal.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:46 am
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
Mothman wrote:
No , that's how you're choosing to characterize and dismiss the concerns being expressed.


Lol well lets see here. A FAN just started a thread saying "done, zero interest in the 2017 vikings". Like if we went 0-16, guess I could understand even though that would never be me but we went 8-8 after a year riddled by injuries, coaching changes, etc. And made the playoffs and practically beat Seattle last year. Now all of the sudden guys are "done" with the Vikings? If you are a fan and you are "done" with the 2017 Vikings or Vikings in general, then yeah, you're basically acting like the sky has fallen. Everyone is frustrated. But to say you have no interest in them, wont watch them, etc. thats pretty sad if you ask me. But hey, do as you please.

Quote:

I don't think anybody can truly know that but even if we assume it's true, being better than 8-8 doesn't make them a serious Super Bowl contender or even mean they're truly on the road to becoming a serious SB contender.


Green Bay was 10-6, Atlanta and Pitt were both 11-5 which we went last year. All of them are currently contending. To have their record we would need 2-3 more wins. So those 3 teams can be contenders with a couple more wins that we had this year but if we were 10-6 or 11-5, we couldnt be contenders?? Makes a lot of sense

Quote:
Who cares if the team isn't good enough as a whole? Too many people have stars in their eyes over the defense. A good defense is 1/3 of a good team.


Yeah because the defense is damn good. Outside of Locke I would say we have one of the better special teams, especially from a return stand point. So there is 2/3 of a good team. Right now, both teams playing for the NFC title have bottom 10 defenses when it comes to total defense.

So both Atlanta and GB have bottom 10 defenses but very good offenses. Special teams is special teams. So both of those teams, as you like to put it, have 1/3 of a good team. Maybe their special teams are good I honestly have no clue and dont really care. So if they can contend with 1/3 of a good team, the Vikings cant??

Your two above posts suggest that if we made the playoffs we couldnt contend with 1/3 of a team yet somehow GB and Atlanta are. Hmmmm...

Quote:

Seattle built a Super Bowl-winning team that was good enough to almost win 2 in a row. They ran into post-championship cap issues because they had built an excellent team and they couldn't afford to pay all the talent they had assembled. That's very different from the Vikings situation. the Vikes have the problems without the accomplishments.


Ok? It's not like they didnt have draft picks. And they also still had Okung and Sweezy after the SB for another year or two. They just lost those guys last year. They went and drafted 3 RBs and flopped on their OL picks. I could only imagine what this board would do if the Vikings drafted 3 RBs in one class. The Seahawks finished 29th and 32nd the last 2 years in OL rankings according to PFF. That is WORSE than us both years. And that was WITH Okung and Sweezy last year. They havent had a good OL in a long time.


Directly from PFF this year:

Quote:
Nobody has invested LESS in their offensive line than the Seattle Seahawks, and it showed in their performance over the 2016 season, with the unit being directly responsible for some of the team’s losses. Even their best performer, Justin Britt, was moved to center in a last-ditch attempt to salvage his career, rather than have to invest more in the position (though he has played far better at center than any other position, surrendering no sacks or hits this season). The other four starters top out at overall grades of 52.3, and the best-ranked among them (LG Mark Glowinski) is the 63rd-ranked player at his position league-wide. The success Seattle has experienced this season is entirely in spite of its offensive line, and requires QB Russell Wilson and the running backs to play stellar football to continue to overcome the unit’s deficiencies.


Yet they were considered "contenders" for a good portion of the season. :confused:

Quote:

It's not just 40 years of frustration. It's 40+ years of observation. It's perspective. It doesn't seem to occur to you that some of us look at this team, based on that experience, and perhaps see things you don't see, see patterns and problems indicative of the same struggles that have kept the Vikes out of the Super Bowl for the past 4 decades and seem likely to keep them out of it in the near future too.


Right because we only have 1/3 of a team right? Or maybe 2/3? Which means we cant contend. I think Spielman is a good GM and Zim is a good coach. I've felt that way for a while now. I never liked Frazier or Childress and expressed that before. Hated Musgrave with a passion. And I had no problem expressing that during the season. But I like Zim as a coach. Reminds me a lot of my father. And I've been a Spielman supporter for a long time now because he builds through the draft. Nothing is going to change my mind on that right now. If they prove me wrong, I'll be the first to eat crow.

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:50 am
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
PurpleKoolaid wrote:
Treadwell need to put in more effort with Bradford.


Was this ever an issue before?


Quote:
We would have a good, not average but good, passing game if Treadwell plays to expectations. And the Oline improves. I hope everyone know we cant ffix this Oline in 1 year. But I think in 2 we can.


Agreed

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:24 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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Green Bay was 10-6, Atlanta and Pitt were both 11-5 which we went last year. All of them are currently contending. To have their record we would need 2-3 more wins. So those 3 teams can be contenders with a couple more wins that we had this year but if we were 10-6 or 11-5, we couldnt be contenders?? Makes a lot of sense


As far as I'm concerned, making the playoffs doesn't make a team a serious Super Bowl contender. I don't believe the 10-6 Vikings in 2012 or the 11-5 Vikings in 2015 were ever serious threats to go all the way. Do you think either of those teams had a realistic chance to run the table in the postseason? Neither even won a game.

I'm making a distinction between teams with winning records and teams that actually have a realistic chance to win a Super Bowl. I realize some fans feel any team that makes the playoffs is automatically a contender. That's true in the most literal sense but I think it's clear every season that some of those playoffs teams really don't have what it takes to go all the way.

Quote:
Ok? It's not like they didnt have draft picks. And they also still had Okung and Sweezy after the SB for another year or two. They just lost those guys last year. They went and drafted 3 RBs and flopped on their OL picks. I could only imagine what this board would do if the Vikings drafted 3 RBs in one class. The Seahawks finished 29th and 32nd the last 2 years in OL rankings according to PFF. And that was WITH Okung and Sweezy last year. They havent had a good OL in a long time.


Are their failings are somehow supposed to justify the Vikings failings? What's the relevance? It's cold comfort that other teams have OL issues too.

Quote:
Right because we only have 1/3 of a team right? Or maybe 2/3? Which means we cant contend.


My point was simply that a good defense isn't enough. I didn't say the Vikings can't contend. I've already made it clear in this thread that I'm not ruling out potential success for them. I just don't think it's likely they will be legitimate Super Bowl contenders in the near future. I reject the argument that building a good defense somehow precluded building a better offense than they've assembled over the past 5 or 6 years because they've had the time, resources and opportunities to do better and they haven't managed to build a well-balanced team.

Quote:
I think Spielman is a good GM and Zim is a good coach. I've felt that way for a while now. I never liked Frazier or Childress and expressed that before. Hated Musgrave with a passion. And I had no problem expressing that during the season. But I like Zim as a coach. Reminds me a lot of my father. And I've been a Spielman supporter for a long time now because he builds through the draft. Nothing is going to change my mind on that right now. If they prove me wrong, I'll be the first to eat crow.


I gave up trying to change your mind about either Zimmer or Spielman a long time ago. :) I'm simply trying to get you to stop dismissing legitimate doubts about them as if they're unfounded. Not everyone shares your deep faith in Spielman and Zimmer or your view that a bad OL basically explains the team's 2016 season. Building through the draft is a great philosophy but it still has to be done effectively. Zimmer's likable but he still needs to solve team problems and improve areas of weakness other than the pass defense and he hasn't really accomplished that.

I have yet to see anybody here explain why I should believe a GM and coach with almost no history of postseason success (Zimmer hasn't experienced it since he was an assistant coach on Barry Switzer's staff in Dallas, the Vikes have 1 playoff win since Spielman arrived)) and almost no history of building successful offenses are going to transform this struggling Vikings team into a Super Bowl contender. They've just doubled down on a QB who's never played in a postseason game either and an offensive coordinator who's had minimal success when calling plays. I understand that hope springs eternal but when I look at the team's problems, how they developed and who is trying to fix them, I'm highly skeptical of their ability to get the job done because their history suggests it's unlikely. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:36 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
Mothman wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, making the playoffs doesn't make a team a serious Super Bowl contender. I don't believe the 10-6 Vikings in 2012 or the 11-5 Vikings in 2015 were ever serious threats to go all the way. Do you think either of those teams had a realistic chance to run the table in the postseason? Neither even won a game.


They were a FG away from beating Seattle which would have given them Arizona. Are YOU going to sit here and say we couldnt be Arizona? Because that season we lost to them 23-20 and didnt have the 3 best players on our defense at the time. Our best DL Joseph, our best LB Barr and our best DB Smith. Yet we lost by 3 AT Arizona. That is definitely a winnable game. That puts us in the NFC championship if we win that. So yeah, that team could have contended.

Quote:
I'm making a distinction between teams with winning records and teams that actually have a realistic chance to win a Super Bowl. I realize some fans feel any team that makes the playoffs is automatically a contender. That's true in the most literal sense but I think it's clear every season that some of those playoffs teams really don't have what it takes to go all the way.


Never said they are just an automatic contender. Actually think about the situation I wrote above and tell me that team didnt have a shot at contending.

Quote:

Are their failings are somehow supposed to justify the Vikings failings? What's the relevance? It's cold comfort that other teams have OL issues too.


No. I brought Schneider up and you went into the whole, he won a SB thing. So that's an excuse not to build an OL?? It had nothing to do with their "post championship" cap issues as much as you think it did.

Quote:

My point was simply that a good defense isn't enough. I didn't say the Vikings can't contend. I've already made it clear in this thread that I'm not ruling out potential success for them. I just don't think it's likely they will be legitimate Super Bowl contenders in the near future. I reject the argument that building a good defense somehow precluded building a better offense than they've assembled over the past 5 or 6 years because they've had the time, resources and opportunities to do better and they haven't managed to build a well-balanced team.


Well last year Denver had a middling offense and a good defense and won it all. So that is what I am saying is that if we can just get to a middling offense that takes care of the football then why couldnt we contend?? This isnt something that is out of the question. Bottom line is, people just need to relax until the offseason actually hits and you see FA and the draft. If we arent going OL in free agency and/or the draft, then people can complain. But to sit here and say I have confidence or you have no confidence or whatever is pretty pointless because none of us know and wont know until March. So give continuously repeating you have no faith in Zim and Spielman a rest in every thread for once until you actually see what happens.

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:51 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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
They were a FG away from beating Seattle which would have given them Arizona. Are YOU going to sit here and say we couldnt be Arizona? Because that season we lost to them 23-20 and didnt have the 3 best players on our defense at the time. Our best DL Joseph, our best LB Barr and our best DB Smith. Yet we lost by 3 AT Arizona. That is definitely a winnable game. That puts us in the NFC championship if we win that. So yeah, that team could have contended.


Quote:
Never said they are just an automatic contender. Actually think about the situation I wrote above and tell me that team didn't have a shot at contending.


i don't think they did. They went 0-3 against the 2 teams you mentioned and I see no reason to believe they would have defeated the 2015 Panthers or the Broncos.

Quote:
No. I brought Schneider up and you went into the whole, he won a SB thing. So that's an excuse not to build an OL??


It's not an excuse at all. My point was that they did build an OL.

Quote:
Well last year Denver had a middling offense and a good defense and won it all. So that is what I am saying is that if we can just get to a middling offense that takes care of the football then why couldnt we contend?? This isnt something that is out of the question.


I didn't say it was out of the question. I said I don't think it's likely, that I'm skeptical they will actually put together a team that can win it all in the near future. Please see the difference between saying it's unlikely and saying it can't be done.

Quote:
Bottom line is, people just need to relax until the offseason actually hits and you see FA and the draft. If we arent going OL in free agency and/or the draft, then people can complain.


I am relaxed and I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate when people can complain.

Quote:
But to sit here and say I have confidence or you have no confidence or whatever is pretty pointless because none of us know and wont know until March. So give continuously repeating you have no faith in Zim and Spielman a rest in every thread for once until you actually see what happens.


I've seen what's actually happened and it's been ugly. That's why I'm concerned about what will happen next.

Please answer the question: why should we believe this GM and coach with almost no history of postseason success and almost no history of building successful offenses are going to transform this struggling Vikings team into a Super Bowl contender?


Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:26 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Mothman wrote:
808vikingsfan wrote:
chicagopurple wrote:
The Steelers have had 3 coaches in the last 50 yrs......we go thru that many every 3-4 yrs.
The Patriots also are rock solid on coaching.
Ownership never changes in those town


Hmmmmm. I don't hear too many people here suggesting the ownership commit to Zimmer. All I hear are fans questioning if the Vikings hired the right coach. Maybe we all need to change our mentality and show patience in building a team rather than demanding immediate results just as S197 said in another thread.


An extended commitment to a head coach (or GM!) without results to justify it is just foolish and we're 3 years into the Zimmer era now so we're way past demanding "immediate" results. I recognize the value of continuity and that's why, when Zimmer was hired, I said I hoped he'd get at least 4 years to show what he can do. He's going to get those 4 years (and he should) but further commitment beyond that should absolutely be conditional on results. Everybody should question whether the Vikings have hired the right head coach until it's crystal clear that they actually hired the right head coach. We've seen 3 straight seasons of lousy, bottom 15% of the league-level offense with little-to-no-improvement. We've seen almost no improvement in the run defense either and the Vikes just followed a playoff season with a train wreck of a season. At this point, anybody not wondering if Zimmer is the right head coach for the job might have an excess of patience. :)



I don't think it's foolish at all.

How you measure results in your mind is different from me because I see a coach that has built a defense good enough to get to the dance. That's results to me. Completely turning a defense around is no easy task and Zimmer did that. I also think 3-4 years is way too short to see what a coach can do, especially if the coach is showing he can build a team to contend. It's pretty obvious that the philosophy of this team was a strong defense to compliment a conservative, run first offense. Win the field position battle, control the clock, and take care of the ball. To me, stats don't mean much with that kind of team. To win the SB, history has shown you need a great offense or a great defense. A great offense needs an elite QB which we know is rare so building a great defense makes sense to me. I don't see this season as a train wreck. The year they started Freeman was a train wreck. This season was hampered by injuries, plain and simple. Talent on the field wins games. Injuries keep talent off the field. I don't care what team it is, take away your 3 most important players on offense and your team will struggle. The Vikings were a playoff team last year and IMO, at the very least, a playoff team this year if not for the injuries.

_________________
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014


Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:34 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
Missed Field goal at end of regulation is the only thing holding up the "they didn't win a playoff game" statement.

They fixed that particular problem, albeit a bit too late. Forbath may have missed some Extra Points but his FG% was pretty good... Nope, still a problem. Need a pitcher of pessimism please.

But now the OL problems are apparently so bad that the it doesn't matter how good the defense plays, or that our QB is better than the guy in 2015. Nope, fill that pitcher up again.

BTW, we beat GB, HOU, and NYG this year when our defense was playing with confidence. Team Morale non-issue, nothing to see here. Can I get a bigger pitcher?

OK, back to hiatus.

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


Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:45 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:
Missed Field goal at end of regulation is the only thing holding up the "they didn't win a playoff game" statement.

They fixed that particular problem, albeit a bit too late. Forbath may have missed some Extra Points but his FG% was pretty good... Nope, still a problem. Need a pitcher of pessimism please.

But now the OL problems are apparently so bad that the it doesn't matter how good the defense plays, or that our QB is better than the guy in 2015. Nope, fill that pitcher up again.

BTW, we beat GB, HOU, and NYG this year when our defense was playing with confidence. Team Morale non-issue, nothing to see here. Can I get a bigger pitcher?

OK, back to hiatus.


I find it odd how losing on a last second fg miss somehow makes the playoff loss more impressive, noone said they got their #### kicked in the playoffs, just that they didnt win, this always seems to be your retort.

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


Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:16 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
808vikingsfan wrote:
I don't think it's foolish at all.


So do you think commitment to a coach is an inherently good idea regardless of results? At some point, I think they have to be taken into consideration. Take Zimmer out of the equation for the moment: suppose a team hires a head coach and that coach has 4 straight losing seasons. Should the team stick with the coach longer and if so, how long should they remain committed to him before they move on?

Back to Zimmer:

Quote:
How you measure results in your mind is different from me because I see a coach that has built a defense good enough to get to the dance. That's results to me. Completely turning a defense around is no easy task and Zimmer did that. I also think 3-4 years is way too short to see what a coach can do, especially if the coach is showing he can build a team to contend. It's pretty obvious that the philosophy of this team was a strong defense to compliment a conservative, run first offense. Win the field position battle, control the clock, and take care of the ball. To me, stats don't mean much with that kind of team. To win the SB, history has shown you need a great offense or a great defense. A great offense needs an elite QB which we know is rare so building a great defense makes sense to me.


That makes sense to me but I think overall results need to be considered, not just defensive results. So far, Zimmer has built a good defense and arguably, a good enough defense to win a Super Bowl. It clearly takes more and we've seen little to no improvement in other areas of the team over the past 3 years (or even in the run defense). That has to change and if it doesn't, I think the Vikings have to seriously question how long they should stay committed to this head coach/GM combination. Otherwise, they could end up with a Marvin Lewis/Cincinnati Bengals-like situation. The Bengals committed to Lewis and have stuck with him for 14 seasons now. They have 7 winning seasons, three .500 seasons and zero playoff wins to show for that commitment.

Maybe 4 years isn't enough but 14 years certainly seems too long in Cincy's case so how and when do you make the determination to move on?


Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:20 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
Mothman wrote:

i don't think they did. They went 0-3 against the 2 teams you mentioned and I see no reason to believe they would have defeated the 2015 Panthers or the Broncos.


They lost to Seattle due to a botched kick and lost to Arizona by 3 AT Arizona with our 3 best defensive players out. Are you really going to sit there and say we couldnt beat Arizona?? Can you honestly sit there and say, with a healthy defense, which we had in the playoffs, we couldnt beat the Cardinals?? Come on man. No less they got embarrassed by Carolina in the NFC championship. And by making the NFC championship, I would say thats "contending" because they are "contending" for a SB bid.


Quote:
It's not an excuse at all. My point was that they did build an OL.


No they didnt. Even in the SB it was no better than what we had last year or going into this year.

Okung and Unger were their only good OL. Carpenter was well below average, Britt was well below average and Sweezy was well below average (Rotoworld states: Sweezy has been an annual liability in Pro Football Focus' ratings). Their depth consisted of (brace yourself for these names): Alvin Bailey, Michael Bowie, Caylin Hauptmann, Lemanuel Jeanpierre and Steve Schilling.

So no, they 110% did NOT build an OL during their SB runs.

Quote:
I am relaxed and I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate when people can complain.


I'm not trying to "dictate". It's just people are going back and forth and nobody has any clue what's really going to happen. But guys sit here and say it can be done it cant be done, and so on. It's pretty tiring if you ask me.

Quote:
I've seen what's actually happened and it's been ugly. That's why I'm concerned about what will happen next.

Please answer the question: why should we believe this GM and coach with almost no history of postseason success and almost no history of building successful offenses are going to transform this struggling Vikings team into a Super Bowl contender?


I mean you say history like Mike Zimmer has been a head coach for 20 years. It's been 3 years. One year when he inherited Frazier's dog crap of a team and practically needed to build from the ground up. made the playoffs the following year, and I truly believe they would have been back there this year minus the injuries and Blair Walsh. I mean we were a missed XP and failed drive away from beating Detroit twice which would have put us 3 games ahead in the division lead, beat GB once already and practically be secured a playoff spot.

We have "2/3" of a good team already like you've said. So we cant contend by improving this offense just a little. Zimmer has said to the media time and time again during the year and recently that this is a very strong defensive team and mentioned the injuries sustained on offense and how the line struggled. He's basically admitting to the media that the OL was an issue this year. Do you truly believe he's going to walk into the offseason not worry about OL?? Do you really think he's that dumb?? "Oh well he didnt do it in the past so why would he do it now". Enough with that. It's a different year every year. Different guys hit FA and the draft. Guys sit here and say all he does is draft defense.

Well since Zim has been here, we have drafted 16 defensive players and 12 offensive. With many of those defensive players being later round picks such as 2014 when it was Exum, James, Price, Watts and Stephen all in the back half of the draft. And this year with Weatherly and Kearse. So can we please put that stupid argument to bed (to everyone, not just Jim). Just because we have a good defense means we go defense heavy in the draft and it's not true. They were just good picks. The only time he went D heavy was in 2014 when he got here because he inherited next to nothing.

I averaged everyone up since he's been here. Taken what spot they were drafted in. We drafted 12 offensive players with an average pick of 133.3 and drafted 16 defensive players with an average pick of 150.9. So we've slightly taken more defensive players but take offensive players earlier. To me that seems pretty balanced.

So lets please put the "he's drafts heavy on defense" thing to bed because it's simply not true. There is no evidence that he "wont go offense" this year or OL or defense for that matter. There is no evidence of what he will do. I am in more of a wait and see mode. If they assess the team like I think they should this year, then yeah I think they have a legit shot to be a contender. If they dont, I have no problem sitting here and questioning both Spielman and Zimmer.

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:24 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:
They fixed that particular problem, albeit a bit too late. Forbath may have missed some Extra Points but his FG% was pretty good...

Nope, still a problem. Need a pitcher of pessimism please.


It's not pessimism and characterizing it that way is unfair. I'm simply talking about actual results.

Forbath made 79% of his XP attempts, exactly the same percentage as the kicker he replaced. How does that indicate a kicking situation that's been fixed? He hit all of his FG attempts, which was encouraging but the extra points matter too, don't they? Isn't missing them one of the reasons you've given for Walsh's presence supposedly being a demoralizing factor to the team?

Quote:
But now the OL problems are apparently so bad that the it doesn't matter how good the defense plays, or that our QB is better than the guy in 2015. Nope, fill that pitcher up again.

BTW, we beat GB, HOU, and NYG this year when our defense was playing with confidence. Team Morale non-issue, nothing to see here. Can I get a bigger pitcher?


It's easy to be so dismissive but a default position of optimism doesn't represent some moral high ground. We could indulge in such behavior above all day. For example:

The OL was awful, the running game was the worst in the league and the team has no starting offensive tackles signed for next year? No worries, they're on the rise!

I could go on but my point isn't to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange but to underline the unfair nature of your comments. They read like the old good fan/bad fan judgment in a different guise. It's fine to see the team's future in sunny terms but if someone expresses doubt about the team's future after a season that clearly didn't go well, they're just filling a "pitcher of pessimism"? It seems to me that a 3-8 finish is sufficient reason for some doubt.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the reason we so often fall into these debates about the upward or downward trajectory of the team is because the team is so often mediocre. They never seem to settle into an upward trajectory for long. They never settle the question for us with a definitive answer. Heck, they've only made the playoffs in back-to-back seasons once in this century! Doesn't that make the lack of universal optimism a little more understandable?


Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:03 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
I don't want to keep discussing the Seahawks or what "might" have happened if moral victories had been actual victories. I'd prefer to just deal with what has actually happened.

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
I mean you say history like Mike Zimmer has been a head coach for 20 years. It's been 3 years


I referred to his history because he also has a substantial history as a coordinator. I don't want to get into obvious the differences between a coordinator and a head coach. I'm fully aware of them. However, the prevailing theory here seems to be that Zimmer's capable of putting together a defense good enough to carry a team to a Super Bowl title. He's never had a defense like that.

I realize playoff losses are team losses. I'm just saying there's not a lot of history of postseason success on the staff, in the front office or even on the roster. That doesn't rule out the possibility of such success but it doesn't instill confidence either.

Quote:
We have "2/3" of a good team already like you've said. So we cant contend by improving this offense just a little. Zimmer has said to the media time and time again during the year and recently that this is a very strong defensive team and mentioned the injuries sustained on offense and how the line struggled. He's basically admitting to the media that the OL was an issue this year. Do you truly believe he's going to walk into the offseason not worry about OL?? Do you really think he's that dumb?? "Oh well he didnt do it in the past so why would he do it now". Enough with that. It's a different year every year. Different guys hit FA and the draft. Guys sit here and say all he does is draft defense.

Well since Zim has been here, we have drafted 16 defensive players and 12 offensive. With many of those defensive players being later round picks such as 2014 when it was Exum, James, Price, Watts and Stephen all in the back half of the draft. And this year with Weatherly and Kearse. So can we please put that stupid argument to bed (to everyone, not just Jim). Just because we have a good defense means we go defense heavy in the draft and it's not true. They were just good picks. The only time he went D heavy was in 2014 when he got here because he inherited next to nothing.

I averaged everyone up since he's been here. Taken what spot they were drafted in. We drafted 12 offensive players with an average pick of 133.3 and drafted 16 defensive players with an average pick of 150.9. So we've slightly taken more defensive players but take offensive players earlier. To me that seems pretty balanced.

So lets please put the "he's drafts heavy on defense" thing to bed because it's simply not true. There is no evidence that he "wont go offense" this year or OL or defense for that matter. There is no evidence of what he will do. I am in more of a wait and see mode. If they assess the team like I think they should this year, then yeah I think they have a legit shot to be a contender. If they dont, I have no problem sitting here and questioning both Spielman and Zimmer.


In that case, some of us have just started a year earlier. :)

I think when people talk about the Vikings going heavy on defense in the draft the last 3 years they are primarily referring to the early rounds and there's been a 2:1 ratio of defense to offense in the first 3 rounds. They've drafted 6 defensive players in rounds 1-3 and just 3 offensive players so there is a disparity there.

I'd still like someone to explain why I should believe this coaching staff and Gm are going to turn this team into a Super Bowl contender, especially because if you look at the offensive players the Vikes have drafted over the last 3 years, the overall yield has been pretty disappointing thus far.


Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:23 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
Mothman wrote:
I referred to his history because he also has a substantial history as a coordinator. I don't want to get into obvious the differences between a coordinator and a head coach. I'm fully aware of them. However, the prevailing theory here seems to be that Zimmer's capable of putting together a defense good enough to carry a team to a Super Bowl title. He's never had a defense like that.

I realize playoff losses are team losses. I'm just saying there's not a lot of history of postseason success on the staff, in the front office or even on the roster. That doesn't rule out the possibility of such success but it doesn't instill confidence either.


Well I mean that goes along with any new coaching staff. It's not every day where a team hires an established head coach that's won super bowls. It comes down to believing he's the right guy or you don't. I believe he is. The respect he has across the league and how he coaches, yes I believe he is the right guy to have here. Look at the coaches of the final 4 teams right now. They are all established except for Quinn. Who was a guy that started off 5-0 just a year ago and finished 8-8 just like we did. But I'm sure many are looking at him as a pretty legit coach. Who's to say Zimmer can't do that next year?? Atlanta is good on one side of the ball. No different than us. They got to the NFC championship with the 25 ranked defense in the NFL.

Quote:
In that case, some of us have just started a year earlier. :)

I think when people talk about the Vikings going heavy on defense in the draft the last 3 years they are primarily referring to the early rounds and there's been a 2:1 ratio of defense to offense in the first 3 rounds. They've drafted 6 defensive players in rounds 1-3 and just 3 offensive players so there is a disparity there.

I'd still like someone to explain why I should believe this coaching staff and Gm are going to turn this team into a Super Bowl contender, especially because if you look at the offensive players the Vikes have drafted over the last 3 years, the overall yield has been pretty disappointing thus far.


We're looking at a 3 year window here. Who's to say Zim couldn't go heavy on offense early this year?? Just because we've picked defensive players higher recently doesnt mean we can't do it for offense. It's a new year and there are needs on offense. Everyone looks into the past drafts too much. "Well all he picks is defense early so of course he's going to do it again. No it doesnt work like that. It's stupid to even say that. Let the guys draft and sign this year and then we can judge. Everyone wants to say past past past. Lets see what happens this year.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for with your question. They can do it just like any other teams have. Draft and sign right. And we won't know that until March and April. They've drafted very well defensively. Give them the chance to do it offensively. If they drafted well offensively up to this point, they probably wouldnt have drafted well defensively because that would eliminate a lot of our good defensive picks recently like Kendricks, Barr, Hunter, Waynes, etc.

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:59 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
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Mothman wrote:
I referred to his history because he also has a substantial history as a coordinator. I don't want to get into obvious the differences between a coordinator and a head coach. I'm fully aware of them. However, the prevailing theory here seems to be that Zimmer's capable of putting together a defense good enough to carry a team to a Super Bowl title. He's never had a defense like that.

I realize playoff losses are team losses. I'm just saying there's not a lot of history of postseason success on the staff, in the front office or even on the roster. That doesn't rule out the possibility of such success but it doesn't instill confidence either.


Well I mean that goes along with any new coaching staff. It's not every day where a team hires an established head coach that's won super bowls. It comes down to believing he's the right guy or you don't. I believe he is. The respect he has across the league and how he coaches, yes I believe he is the right guy to have here. Look at the coaches of the final 4 teams right now. They are all established except for Quinn. Who was a guy that started off 5-0 just a year ago and finished 8-8 just like we did. But I'm sure many are looking at him as a pretty legit coach. Who's to say Zimmer can't do that next year?? Atlanta is good on one side of the ball. No different than us. They got to the NFC championship with the 25 ranked defense in the NFL.

Quote:
In that case, some of us have just started a year earlier. :)

I think when people talk about the Vikings going heavy on defense in the draft the last 3 years they are primarily referring to the early rounds and there's been a 2:1 ratio of defense to offense in the first 3 rounds. They've drafted 6 defensive players in rounds 1-3 and just 3 offensive players so there is a disparity there.

I'd still like someone to explain why I should believe this coaching staff and Gm are going to turn this team into a Super Bowl contender, especially because if you look at the offensive players the Vikes have drafted over the last 3 years, the overall yield has been pretty disappointing thus far.


We're looking at a 3 year window here. Who's to say Zim couldn't go heavy on offense early this year?? Just because we've picked defensive players higher recently doesnt mean we can't do it for offense. It's a new year and there are needs on offense. Everyone looks into the past drafts too much. "Well all he picks is defense early so of course he's going to do it again. No it doesnt work like that. It's stupid to even say that. Let the guys draft and sign this year and then we can judge. Everyone wants to say past past past. Lets see what happens this year.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for with your question. They can do it just like any other teams have. Draft and sign right.


I realize it's possible. As I wrote yesterday, I'm not ruling out success for the Vikings in the near future. I'm just skeptical that we will see it so I'm asking a question about confidence. There seems to be a critical attitude toward people expressing skepticism or even pessimism about the future of the team, as if those are unreasonable positions at this point. Consequently, my question to those who believe we should be optimistic and that significant postseason success is probably just around the corner is why should the rest of us feel confident about that? I understand the Vikings would achieve such success by drafting and signing well, making good decisions, etc. Why, given the history of the people making the decisions, we should feel confident that will happen, especially on offense?

Quote:
And we won't know that until March and April. They've drafted very well defensively. Give them the chance to do it offensively.


That's just it: they've already had the chance and the results aren't encouraging. That's one of the reasons I lack confidence in them.

Quote:
If they drafted well offensively up to this point, they probably wouldnt have drafted well defensively because that would eliminate a lot of our good defensive picks recently like Kendricks, Barr, Hunter, Waynes, etc.


I disagree. Drafting well in one area doesn't preclude drafting well in the other and Spielman's been completely in charge of the draft for a minimum of 6 years (longer in my opinion) so we're only talking about a 3 year window with Zimmer. If you look at the offensive players drafted in that window, other than Diggs I think the results are very discouraging so far.


Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:50 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 6592
Post Re: Done, I have zero interest in following the 2017 Vikings
Mothman wrote:

It's not just 40 years of frustration. It's 40+ years of observation. It's perspective. It doesn't seem to occur to you that some of us look at this team, based on that experience, and perhaps see things you don't see, see patterns and problems indicative of the same struggles that have kept the Vikes out of the Super Bowl for the past 4 decades and seem likely to keep them out of it in the near future too.


I have been a fan for 19 years of my life (I don't count being born into being a Vikings fan as fandom. Or it would be 24 lol). I cannot even begin to imagine what it has been like to be a fan of this team for over 40 years - watching them fail every single year.

I can empathize with you though Jim. My father has been a fan since the late 60's/early 70's. He actually gave up watching them after the NFC Championship game in '87. He would only watch them occasionally throughout the next years. It wasn't until my older brother started liking football at age 6/7 that he started watching again.

My point is, you and my father have seen this show before. He has voiced similar concerns in the past - same as you have in this thread. Honestly, it worries me that he may never get to see his team win a Super Bowl. He isn't getting any younger. Vikings football is special to us both, and I need to see this team win a Super Bowl while we both still grace this earth.

_________________
A Randy Moss fan for life. A Kevin Williams fan for life.


Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:03 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
HardcoreVikesFan wrote:
I have been a fan for 19 years of my life (I don't count being born into being a Vikings fan as fandom. Or it would be 24 lol). I cannot even begin to imagine what it has been like to be a fan of this team for over 40 years - watching them fail every single year.

I can empathize with you though Jim. My father has been a fan since the late 60's/early 70's. He actually gave up watching them after the NFC Championship game in '87. He would only watch them occasionally throughout the next years. It wasn't until my older brother started liking football at age 6/7 that he started watching again.

My point is, you and my father have seen this show before. He has voiced similar concerns in the past - same as you have in this thread. Honestly, it worries me that he may never get to see his team win a Super Bowl. He isn't getting any younger. Vikings football is special to us both, and I need to see this team win a Super Bowl while we both still grace this earth.


I know just what you mean. I hope you'll get to experience a Vikings Super Bowl win with your dad soon.

That '87 game was a heartbreaker and '98 was even harder.


Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:35 am
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
Mothman wrote:

I realize it's possible. As I wrote yesterday, I'm not ruling out success for the Vikings in the near future. I'm just skeptical that we will see it so I'm asking a question about confidence. There seems to be a critical attitude toward people expressing skepticism or even pessimism about the future of the team, as if those are unreasonable positions at this point. Consequently, my question to those who believe we should be optimistic and that significant postseason success is probably just around the corner is why should the rest of us feel confident about that? I understand the Vikings would achieve such success by drafting and signing well, making good decisions, etc. Why, given the history of the people making the decisions, we should feel confident that will happen, especially on offense?


I really don't know what to tell you Jim. Just wait until the draft and then we can judge.



I disagree. Drafting well in one area doesn't preclude drafting well in the other and Spielman's been completely in charge of the draft for a minimum of 6 years (longer in my opinion) so we're only talking about a 3 year window with Zimmer. If you look at the offensive players drafted in that window, other than Diggs I think the results are very discouraging so far.[/quote]

Well if we take an OL two years ago, we don't have Tre Waynes. Or we don't have Eric Kendricks or Hunter. You can't say we could've drafted good offensive players AND still have those guys. That's literally impossible unless you have the draft of the century and hit on every pick which never happens. Give me a draft where we could've had a good balance of offense and defense with a good portion of them being good picks and to where it doesn't effect our current defense. I'd love to hear it. There were needs from top to bottom on defense when Frazier left. Not saying there wasn't on offense either but the need on defense was much bigger. Given we were the last ranked defense in the NFL the Fraziers last year. Zim wasn't going to coach a bunch of scrubs and throw the farm into his offense. I think we figured that coming in. But overall, i think we need to just sit back and let things happen instead of talking about confidence for the next month. Let's just see what they do

_________________
Image


Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:20 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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rhodes Closed, YikesVikes and 29 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.