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.
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
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...
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:
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.
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.