Vikings Message Board.Com

Pondering Her Percy wrote:Exactly. Granted, we'll see how everything goes in a few months but some are acting like the sky is falling.

That description could probably be applied to one or two people here at most but there's an emphasis now in multiple threads on the possibility that the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team IF they play their cards right, get lucky, stay healthy and basically just have everything go well for them. Now that it's reached the point where people are just voting +1, +2, etc. it's basically become the death of conversation.

Let's just acknowledge what almost the entire board has acknowledged already and say yes, it's possible the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team next year. The main disagreement about this subject on the board doesn't seem to be about possibility in the first place but about probability, about expectations. If we're going to keep discussing it, let's at least have an actual discussion about that rather than this repeated jousting against a nearly non-existent opposing view of "some" that "the sky is falling" and the Vikings have no chance at all.

Can we all agree that it's reasonable for people to disagree about the direction of a Vikings team with a highly-ranked defense that won the division in 2015, lost a close playoff game and started last season 5-0 but that's also struggled on offense for years now, collapsed last season and is facing a major rebuild on their offensive line? There's no more reason to ignore the 3-8 finish than there is to ignore the 11 win season that preceded it so it shouldn't be controversial for fans here to have hopes or doubts. After all, we're talking about a team with both obvious strengths and significant weaknesses, a team that just followed a clear upswing with an equally clear downturn in back-to-back seasons. They finished .500, which literally wasn't a winning or losing record so the overall trajectory of the team is clearly debatable. Can we please just discuss them rather than trying to divide the board into hostile camps of believers and non-believers? It's football, not faith.

Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.

halfgiz wrote:Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.

Amen. Let's see how the team deals with the many roster decisions they need to make and then we'll have more information with which to assess their chances for success.

@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.

halfgiz wrote:@ Andrew Krammer
Charles Johnson made an interesting point on Pat Shurmur being an easier coordinator for him, maybe other receivers, to play freely under.

CJ: Things don't always happen in games the way it's drawn up. Pat just tells us to get open.

Yikes, that doesn't bode well.

fiestavike wrote: Yikes, that doesn't bode well.

I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.

S197 wrote:I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.

I agree. I took the comment to mean Johnson didn't like being force-fed into a system, especially one that wasn't working. It's the "pound square pegs into round holes" dynamic.

I hope the the Vikings re-sign Patterson and play Wright more often because they both could be more successful in Shurmur's offense than in Norv's restrictive system. In fact, I think all the WRs would be better off.

S197 wrote: I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.

That's how I took it as well and I see it the same way as you do when it comes to chemistry and improvisation. Norv was a very "rigid" manager, resistant to change and new ideas. He very much had a my way or the highway approach. It really hasn't worked out too well for him over the years. Outside of Dallas, 25 years ago with a HOF QB, RB, WR and an all time great O- line. "Excellence" really hasn't been a very good way to define his carreer.

Mothman wrote: That description could probably be applied to one or two people here at most but there's an emphasis now in multiple threads on the possibility that the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team IF they play their cards right, get lucky, stay healthy and basically just have everything go well for them. Now that it's reached the point where people are just voting +1, +2, etc. it's basically become the death of conversation.

Let's just acknowledge what almost the entire board has acknowledged already and say yes, it's possible the Vikings could be a Super Bowl team next year. The main disagreement about this subject on the board doesn't seem to be about possibility in the first place but about probability, about expectations. If we're going to keep discussing it, let's at least have an actual discussion about that rather than this repeated jousting against a nearly non-existent opposing view of "some" that "the sky is falling" and the Vikings have no chance at all.

Can we all agree that it's reasonable for people to disagree about the direction of a Vikings team with a highly-ranked defense that won the division in 2015, lost a close playoff game and started last season 5-0 but that's also struggled on offense for years now, collapsed last season and is facing a major rebuild on their offensive line? There's no more reason to ignore the 3-8 finish than there is to ignore the 11 win season that preceded it so it shouldn't be controversial for fans here to have hopes or doubts. After all, we're talking about a team with both obvious strengths and significant weaknesses, a team that just followed a clear upswing with an equally clear downturn in back-to-back seasons. They finished .500, which literally wasn't a winning or losing record so the overall trajectory of the team is clearly debatable. Can we please just discuss them rather than trying to divide the board into hostile camps of believers and non-believers? It's football, not faith.

I wouldn't classify my (x2) comment as contributing to the death of conversation. I just agreed with that post. Some of these topics and issues have really become so stale and beat to death. I have already given my thoughts on most of them. I don't feel anyone is trying to divide the board. People's inherently competitive nature may make it seem that way, but at the end of the day, I believe MOST people here believe that everyone's opinion should be respected, whether they agree with it or not.

halfgiz wrote:Kind of feel we're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Let's put an offensive line together first and get through the draft.
Then take a look at things.

I've said that more than once on here. Not everyone listens though

S197 wrote: I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.

I think they have a higher floor and a much lower ceiling under Shurmur. I understand the benefits of going that direction, but it also has consequences/limitations, not the least of which is what it communicates organizationally.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: I've said that more than once on here. Not everyone listens though

Trust me, everyone gets it.

Alaskan wrote:I wouldn't classify my (x2) comment as contributing to the death of conversation. I just agreed with that post. Some of these topics and issues have really become so stale and beat to death.

Which is what I meant by the "death of conversation".

Mothman wrote: Trust me, everyone gets it.

Alrighty then

S197 wrote: I didn't take it that way, I think taking a modular approach may be beneficial. Especially with less technical guys (Patterson being the best example). It may be the reason why he was on the bench for much of Norv's tenure but saw a bump in playing time w/ Shurmur.

I think so long as QB and WR have good chemistry, it can work. There needs to be some structure but I think CJ is right in that the ultimate goal is to get open and sometimes that may take some improvisation.

I agree, I think Shurmur's approach gives us a little better chance to succeed.