The hopelessness comes from the way this team has been run since 2011. I was a guy who was one of the last ones to give up on Ponder, who defended Spielman's failures until 2016 when he made the worst Vikings trade since the Herschell Walker trade. I gave this regime a chance and after almost 10 seasons with no real hope for the future I am done. You go ahead and pretend like everything is great and continue to buy into a product you deserve, I will ask for better.J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:51 am
Looking at the bright side of a team that's won 5 of 6 and wanting to compete for a Super Bowl aren't mutually exclusive. But to address your general attitude of hopeless negativism, when the Vikings do win the Super Bowl, people like you will be the first to moan when they don't win a second. And when they do win a second, you'll complain that they're not doing enough to win a third. It's insufferable. News flash: You're not entitled to root for a dynasty.
What rational balanced analysis? I read all off season on this board this secondary would get better with rookies and backups starting. I read now that the Ngakoue trade wasn't that bad because we gave up a 2nd but got a late 3rd in return. I read that a team with a .500 record that struggles to beat the worst in the NFL and that actually lost to the worst in the NFL is somehow above average. I read that Shamar Stephen is a good NT. I read that a RG playing poorly 3 of his 4 starts is the difference maker and not the best player on the team getting more touches or the softer part of the schedule. I could go on.
Pure delusion, not objectivity.
The parallel is spot on. If you want to look at revenue, do you know what the only year in this century the Cubs revenue went down over the previous year? 2013, where it dropped by 8 million from 2012. After 12 years of steadily increasing revenue, you don't think the Cubs ownership got scared their cash flow was drying up? Do you think it is coincidence they fired their GM after that year? Whoops!Your Chicago Cubs parallel is way, way off base (get it?). The Cubs have significantly exceeded the N.L. average attendance every year since 1998. There was no "down attendance," unless you consider "falling" slightly below 3 million fans and still easily finishing in the Top 5 in attendance "down." But even if you allow for the "down attendance" argument, allow me to educate you on where a team's revenue comes from. One word: television. Less than a third comes from ticket sales and stadium revenue. So if attendance drops 5%, which is actually more than it fell from 2011 to 2013 when the Cubs were at their worst, revenue falls by less than 1%. That makes your Cubs illustration look like it was drawn by a 3-year-old.
The attendance those years was a symptom of a greater issue, something even a 3 year old could figure out.
I mean, it is your analogy.Finally, your analogy for Pepsi and Coke is total garbage. This is about scale. There are enough Pepsi lovers that losing one malcontent to Coke (or even 100) won't make the slightest difference. Likewise, there are millions of loyal Vikings fans who wouldn't dream of rooting for anyone else. But hey, feel free to apply the analogy to yourself. Like the disgruntled Pepsi drinker, you won't be missed.
I know it is about scale. It isn't about one fan deciding they want more from their team, it is about an entire fanbase looking for better. That doesn't mean you can't decide to stop being part of the problem and actually want better from your team.