'Hey, Teddy': Vikings Laud Bridgewater Before QB's Return to Play Minnesota

[StumpHunter]

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.

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.

And by the way, if you think I'm all purple-colored glasses and unable to provide rational, balanced analysis, then I would suggest you haven't done much actual reading on this board.

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.

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 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!

The attendance those years was a symptom of a greater issue, something even a 3 year old could figure out.

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 mean, it is your analogy.

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.

[psjordan]

The Vikings are a product, and if consumers of that product continue to buy in regardless of the results, ownership will have no reason to change. Fan expectations is what drives ownership to hire or fire front offices, and while one NFC Championship game loss since 20011 is good enough for many Vikings fans to want to continue to buy into a GM, in a place like NE that wouldn't be nearly good enough.

Oh boy. As a born and bred Bostonian, I can tell you that you are confusing "Brady era" NE Patriots under R. Kraft and the amalgam of ownership snot that preceded Brady with the NE and, shudder, Boston Patriots at Fenway Park. And Kraft needed Bledsoe to get hurt before the SB wins started coming, not through "fans buying into the GM". And OBTW, the NE Super Bowl train did not stop with the departure of GM Pioli (He-Who-Selected-Brady). Far from it.

Teams do not win SB's in the NFL unless the OWNER really, really wants to. It's that simple. If their unrelenting desire is to win a SB no matter the cost, well, at some point they probably will. They do not need a fan base that tells them it's important. Nor do they need to win a SB to make money.

Fans thinking their feelings make a difference in any capacity other than maybe voting for a tax bond for a new stadium are, well, not being realistic. Frito-Lay carries WAY more monetary weight than 80,000 locals.

And anyways, even NFL teams that are mired in misery typically don't ever fall short at the gate and/or merchandise.

I get your sentiment, it's about "settling" for a "loser" franchise that's not only never won a SB but does not appear to have a visit there on the short term horizon.

That doesn't mean the correct business decision is to go scorched earth on the FO and coaching staff. And make the whole fan experience black and white.

Under Spielman's 14 years this team is 117-105-2 and a maddening 3-6 in the playoffs. He's drafted 16 Pro Bowl players, which is hard to say if that is good or bad over 14 years. But those numbers minimally point to talent being put on the field, and if one were evaluating Rick I would think he'd have little to do with the 3-6 playoff record, that performance has to be 90% on the coaches and players.

I get that people want a "better" GM than Rick and a "better" QB than Cousins.

I (and perhaps the Wilfs) just think the probability of finding the former who then picks the latter is fairly low. Not to say they should never take the chance, but it's a fairly dicey proposition and I would think it would call for really, really desperate times.

And the Ying to the Yang is that while most owners desperately want to go to the owners meetings with a SB trophy in tow, they also desperately do not want to go as the Guy Who Just Blew Up a Decent Franchise.

[StumpHunter]

Oh boy. As a born and bred Bostonian, I can tell you that you are confusing "Brady era" NE Patriots under R. Kraft and the amalgam of ownership snot that preceded Brady with the NE and, shudder, Boston Patriots at Fenway Park. And Kraft needed Bledsoe to get hurt before the SB wins started coming, not through "fans buying into the GM". And OBTW, the NE Super Bowl train did not stop with the departure of GM Pioli (He-Who-Selected-Brady). Far from it.

The expectations now are very different than the expectations prior to Brady, correct? If Bill retired, his replacement made the playoffs every other year with no real success there, how long would he last?

Teams do not win SB's in the NFL unless the OWNER really, really wants to. It's that simple. If their unrelenting desire is to win a SB no matter the cost, well, at some point they probably will. They do not need a fan base that tells them it's important. Nor do they need to win a SB to make money.

So what motivates the owners who don't have this deep desire to win? What about the owners who would like to win but who's bottom line is the most important thing? Wouldn't hurting that bottom line make them emphasize winning a bit more?

Fans thinking their feelings make a difference in any capacity other than maybe voting for a tax bond for a new stadium are, well, not being realistic. Frito-Lay carries WAY more monetary weight than 80,000 locals.

There is a huge difference between the top revenue earners and the bottom ones in the NFL. Right now the Vikings are right around the middle, in large part because their market is right around the middle. So while national sponsors like Frito Lay do play a big role in a team's revenue, the market the team plays in also plays a huge role. You need to look no further than the Packers to know how winning impacts the revenue from that market, regardless of its size.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You know, I'm really, really close to getting banned right now.

Enabling my favorite team? What are you, 12? I don't have anything to do with whether they win or lose, and guess what? Neither do you. We're FANS. We have NOTHING TO DO with the outcome. We're buying a product. If you don't like Pepsi, then go ahead and buy Coke. But don't tell me what I have the right to enjoy or not enjoy, and don't tell me what I deserve. Got it?

If enough people did that, what would Pepsi do? Would they continue selling the same product no one wants or change things up?

The Vikings are a product, and if consumers of that product continue to buy in regardless of the results, ownership will have no reason to change. Fan expectations is what drives ownership to hire or fire front offices, and while one NFC Championship game loss since 20011 is good enough for many Vikings fans to want to continue to buy into a GM, in a place like NE that wouldn't be nearly good enough.

Why do you think the Cubs lost for so many years before finally winning it all? Was it a curse or was it because ownership knew fans would continue to come to games regardless of how bad they were, and wasn't as driven as a team like the Yankees, or even the Cardinals to win it all? Many Cubs fans reveled in rooting for their loveable losers, and ownership was happy to oblige. It is not a coincidence the Cubs eventually did win it all after a couple of years of down attendance prior to 2015 when they started to put together their World Series team.

If Vikings fans as a whole expected more, ownership would attempt to give us more. If Vikings fans as a whole pat themselves on the back after a 3 game stretch where they lost to one of the worst teams in the NFL and then barely beat two other bottom dwellers, because they at least aren't 1-5 anymore, well, that is what ownership will be content with too.

So go ahead and continue to look on the bright side of this season if that is what you need to do to enjoy watching this team, but understand that others actually want to compete for a SB and expect more.

Dude you're barking up the wrong tree right now. I said to you before that you're that guy that has to come on here and pis* in everyone's cheerios anytime someone gets excited about this team. They are 5-1 in the last 6 games, who's going to complain about that? Right, just you because that's what you do. And I can tell you right now, every fan on here wants a SB and not one wants one more than another. But to question Kapp of all people who's been watching this team for as long as he has about not striving for a SB simply shows ignorance on your part. We all want that and when the Vikings are going 5-1 during a 6 game stretch, you're going to come on here and see excitement. Who are you to try and control that and pis* in everyone's cheerios. I can almost guarantee that if that's how it was going to be on here with you every time the Vikings are doing well, members will leave or will push for you to leave.

That's pretty much a good fan/bad fan argument you're having right there with Kapp. You're acting like since we arent all pis*y like you every week and "striving for a SB", we arent worthy. If it wasnt for the constant negativity out of your mouth and attacking of others more often than not, you'd have nothing to talk about on here. You'd be non-existent. I continue to wonder how you've yet to be banned.

[psjordan]

You need to look no further than the Packers to know how winning impacts the revenue from that market, regardless of its size.

Well putting revenue aside (the Pack will always sell out from Favre on out) and getting back to fans demanding a new GM, GB is an interesting situation.

They have basically had Favre and Rodgers as their QB’s FOR THE LAST 29 FRICKIN YEARS. The GM’s during that time have come and gone, with extra points to anyone who even KNOWS who the current GM is, much less how to spell his name.

29 years with two of the greatest QB’s of all time. With what, I don’t know, 6-7 GM’s during that time? Two Super Bowl wins.

If that does not convince you that trying to find a great GM who can find you a great QB is a real pig-in-a-poke, I don’t know what will.

Now granted two in 29 is two more than our team, but really - having two of the best QB’s in history nets you two SB wins in three decades? NE did it repeatedly over the Brady years in large part because Brady agreed to team-friendly deals along the way. For all his haters out there, the guy sure cared about SB wins more than money.

Anyways I digress. It’s really, really hard to get the world-class QB that in today’s NFL seems the best way to get to the SB.

The other way? Do it with a QB like Cousins (i.e., winners Eli Manning, Flacco, Foles or losers Newton, Ryan, Goff, Garoppolo). There are others, but I didn't want to go back too far.

[J. Kapp 11]

What rational balanced analysis? I read all off season on this board this secondary would get better with rookies and backups starting.

I didn't say that.

I read now that the Ngakoue trade wasn't that bad because we gave up a 2nd but got a late 3rd in return.

Never said that, either.

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.

You're on a roll. Never said that. I've said they're playing well since the bye. A 5-1 record says I'm right.

I read that Shamar Stephen is a good NT.

Finally, you hit on one. Sort of. I simply repeated what all-pro linebacker teammate Eric Kendricks said about Shamar Stephen. What you got? PFF? Your opinion? Here's something you may not know. Your opinion isn't any better than mine. That's why they call it an opinion.

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.

Again, your opinion on the RG. Brian Baldinger, who actually, you know, played offensive line in the NFL says otherwise. Sorry bub, but I go with the actual pro over Mr. Armchair I Know Everything.

I could go on.

For your own sake, please don't.

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!

Eight whole million less revenue? Oh my god. What will Tom Ricketts do? How on earth can he feed his family? Panic! And by the way, Theo Epstein was hired in 2011, so ... whoops!

The attendance those years was a symptom of a greater issue, something even a 3 year old could figure out.

Be careful comparing yourself to a 3-year-old. You might come out on the short end.

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.

Again, how am I part of the problem? I'm a fan. I watch games because I like to watch games. I like the Vikings because my dad took me to a game in 1969 in which the Vikings beat the reigning world champions 52-14 and I was hooked. I'm loyal to my team, maybe to a fault, but I'm freaking loyal. What is it that you want? How do you propose to affect this change? You want an entire fanbase to boycott the team? You go, William Wallace. Rally those troops. Good luck with that.

Wanna know MY motivation? To enjoy watching the Minnesota Vikings for as long as possible each year. Naturally, that means I want them to win the Super Bowl because it means I'd get to watch them to the last game. At the same time, I don't think I'm entitled to anything. Can you say the same?

[VikingLord]

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.

You really believe that the fans of a team can collectively compel ownership to make a team competitive for the top accomplishment in a given sport?

I agree that fans losing interest can compel change. There is no doubt that ownership pays attention to dwindling attendance at games, and that losing (or even mediocrity, I suppose) can push those in power to try different things.

But even if that were enough to compel the kinds of changes that would lead a team towards being competitive for the top prize in a given sport, there are no guarantees that making a particular change will move the team closer to that goal.

In other words, the premise of your argument basically relies on an otherwise reasonable decision maker at the top of an organization who reaches a point where he/she believes a change is warranted for any number of reasons, and that decision maker has multiple choices as to how to move forward. Now, absent some pressure from enough disillusioned fans, that decision maker isn't going to choose what he/she believes is the best option to make the team more competitive. As if that decision maker doesn't personally care about the outcome and is merely running a business, or the GM or coaches or players also don't personally care about winning.

And you can't seriously point at New England as an example of what happens when fans simply demand more. Belichek was far from a sure thing when he was hired. Absent him lucking out with Tom Brady (remember, Brady was a 6th round draft pick), I'm not convinced Belichek would be held up by you or anyone else as some example of how Patriots ownership was compelled to find the next great head coach.

There is so much pure good fortune that determines who wins and loses in the NFL in any given season. For most teams it is akin to catching lightning in a bottle - getting good bounces with draft picks, or happening to acquire the right free agents, or being fortunate with the health of the team, etc. That isn't to say there aren't differences between the well-run teams and the poorly-run ones, or that any head coach or player is as good as another, and certainly I can understand your argument that Spielman and Zimmer have shown enough for us to know that they are not the answer at their respective positions.

But to say that fan pressure is going to be the match that burns it down and allows ownership to usher in new people who are any better at what they do than the ones on the way out is wishful thinking. I think the best you could hope for is that you don't in fact know what the new people will do, which means there is a chance they could do it better. Odds are that they'll be no better than those they replaced, and there is a good chance they will be even worse. That would be true even if the Wilfs made the best possible decision with the information they have at the time they made it.

It's great to demand better. Every one of the 32 teams in the NFL has fans who would love nothing more than to watch their team hoist the Lombardi Trophy at the end of this season and every season to come. They're not going to get closer to realizing that by boycotting the team or trying to hurt it financially.

Let's see how the team does against the Bucs this Sunday. Maybe if they perform well you might start to believe they could be the ones who catch that lightning at the right time.

[StumpHunter]

I read that Shamar Stephen is a good NT.

Finally, you hit on one. Sort of. I simply repeated what all-pro linebacker teammate Eric Kendricks said about Shamar Stephen. What you got? PFF? Your opinion? Here's something you may not know. Your opinion isn't any better than mine. That's why they call it an opinion.

It isn't my opinion, it is a FACT he is a huge downgrade from Joseph last year, who we CUT.
2019 Joseph through 12 games:
13 pressures, 3 sacks, 38 tackles, 22 stops, 1 missed tackle.

2020 Stephen
8 pressures, 1 sack, 24 tackles, 14 stops, 2 missed tackles

Two guys playing the exact same position in the same scheme with Joseph getting doubled on nearly every play, and the guy who got cut is outperforming Stephen by a mile. It is not my opinion that Stephen is a below average NT, it is a fact supported by statistics.

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.

Again, your opinion on the RG. Brian Baldinger, who actually, you know, played offensive line in the NFL says otherwise. Sorry bub, but I go with the actual pro over Mr. Armchair I Know Everything.

Again, not my opinion. A fact supported by actually numbers. Where is Baldy's breakdown of all 4 of Ezra Cleveland's games as a starter. I would be really interested in reading how Brian Baldinger believes Ezra Cleveland had a good game against Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit while the DT opposite him had career games.

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!

Eight whole million less revenue? Oh my god. What will Tom Ricketts do? How on earth can he feed his family? Panic! And by the way, Theo Epstein was hired in 2011, so ... whoops!

Not 8 whole million, closer to 20 million based on projected growth. In business, a CEO can be fired for hitting 1% growth when the projected growth is 5%. It is pretty basic stuff my guy, that if you have a business that is hitting 3% growth pretty consistently over 12 years and then sees a 3 % drop while its competitor in St Louis sees its biggest spike, there is an issue. Which is the real reason the Manager (not GM) of the Cubs was fired. Why do I need to explain basic business to you? Do you really think that an owner of a business doesn't care about decreases in revenue?

Again, how am I part of the problem? I'm a fan. I watch games because I like to watch games. I like the Vikings because my dad took me to a game in 1969 in which the Vikings beat the reigning world champions 52-14 and I was hooked. I'm loyal to my team, maybe to a fault, but I'm freaking loyal. What is it that you want? How do you propose to affect this change? You want an entire fanbase to boycott the team? You go, William Wallace. Rally those troops. Good luck with that.

Wanna know MY motivation? To enjoy watching the Minnesota Vikings for as long as possible each year. Naturally, that means I want them to win the Super Bowl because it means I'd get to watch them to the last game. At the same time, I don't think I'm entitled to anything. Can you say the same?

You are an enabler and that is fine. Mediocre football is good enough for you and as you said, you don't deserve better despite your intense loyalty to this franchise for decades. Normally I would argue fans like you do deserve better, but you think otherwise and you would know better than I what you deserve.

[VikingLord]

You are an enabler and that is fine. Mediocre football is good enough for you and as you said, you don't deserve better despite your intense loyalty to this franchise for decades. Normally I would argue fans like you do deserve better, but you think otherwise and you would know better than I what you deserve.

I think you should drop it right there Stump.

We all want to see the Vikings win a Superbowl every bit as much as you. That you believe you have any personal control over that outcome, especially for someone who appeals to stats and facts as much as you do, suggests you are the one who needs the reality check.

[Rhodes Closed]

Finally, you hit on one. Sort of. I simply repeated what all-pro linebacker teammate Eric Kendricks said about Shamar Stephen. What you got? PFF? Your opinion? Here's something you may not know. Your opinion isn't any better than mine. That's why they call it an opinion.

It isn't my opinion, it is a FACT he is a huge downgrade from Joseph last year, who we CUT.
2019 Joseph through 12 games:
13 pressures, 3 sacks, 38 tackles, 22 stops, 1 missed tackle.

2020 Stephen
8 pressures, 1 sack, 24 tackles, 14 stops, 2 missed tackles

Two guys playing the exact same position in the same scheme with Joseph getting doubled on nearly every play, and the guy who got cut is outperforming Stephen by a mile. It is not my opinion that Stephen is a below average NT, it is a fact supported by statistics.

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.

Again, your opinion on the RG. Brian Baldinger, who actually, you know, played offensive line in the NFL says otherwise. Sorry bub, but I go with the actual pro over Mr. Armchair I Know Everything.

Again, not my opinion. A fact supported by actually numbers. Where is Baldy's breakdown of all 4 of Ezra Cleveland's games as a starter. I would be really interested in reading how Brian Baldinger believes Ezra Cleveland had a good game against Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit while the DT opposite him had career games.

Eight whole million less revenue? Oh my god. What will Tom Ricketts do? How on earth can he feed his family? Panic! And by the way, Theo Epstein was hired in 2011, so ... whoops!

Not 8 whole million, closer to 20 million based on projected growth. In business, a CEO can be fired for hitting 1% growth when the projected growth is 5%. It is pretty basic stuff my guy, that if you have a business that is hitting 3% growth pretty consistently over 12 years and then sees a 3 % drop while its competitor in St Louis sees its biggest spike, there is an issue. Which is the real reason the Manager (not GM) of the Cubs was fired. Why do I need to explain basic business to you? Do you really think that an owner of a business doesn't care about decreases in revenue?

Again, how am I part of the problem? I'm a fan. I watch games because I like to watch games. I like the Vikings because my dad took me to a game in 1969 in which the Vikings beat the reigning world champions 52-14 and I was hooked. I'm loyal to my team, maybe to a fault, but I'm freaking loyal. What is it that you want? How do you propose to affect this change? You want an entire fanbase to boycott the team? You go, William Wallace. Rally those troops. Good luck with that.

Wanna know MY motivation? To enjoy watching the Minnesota Vikings for as long as possible each year. Naturally, that means I want them to win the Super Bowl because it means I'd get to watch them to the last game. At the same time, I don't think I'm entitled to anything. Can you say the same?

You are an enabler and that is fine. Mediocre football is good enough for you and as you said, you don't deserve better despite your intense loyalty to this franchise for decades. Normally I would argue fans like you do deserve better, but you think otherwise and you would know better than I what you deserve.

Can we please get rid of this guy, my god. Disgusting behavior from a member of this board.

[StumpHunter]

You are an enabler and that is fine. Mediocre football is good enough for you and as you said, you don't deserve better despite your intense loyalty to this franchise for decades. Normally I would argue fans like you do deserve better, but you think otherwise and you would know better than I what you deserve.

I think you should drop it right there Stump.

We all want to see the Vikings win a Superbowl every bit as much as you. That you believe you have any personal control over that outcome, especially for someone who appeals to stats and facts as much as you do, suggests you are the one who needs the reality check.

That is like saying you don't have personal control over the outcome of an election because your vote only counts as one in 100 million.

The impact is tiny, not even measurable, but as a fanbase we dictate the team ownership attempts to put on the field.

[StumpHunter]

It isn't my opinion, it is a FACT he is a huge downgrade from Joseph last year, who we CUT.
2019 Joseph through 12 games:
13 pressures, 3 sacks, 38 tackles, 22 stops, 1 missed tackle.

2020 Stephen
8 pressures, 1 sack, 24 tackles, 14 stops, 2 missed tackles

Two guys playing the exact same position in the same scheme with Joseph getting doubled on nearly every play, and the guy who got cut is outperforming Stephen by a mile. It is not my opinion that Stephen is a below average NT, it is a fact supported by statistics.



Again, not my opinion. A fact supported by actually numbers. Where is Baldy's breakdown of all 4 of Ezra Cleveland's games as a starter. I would be really interested in reading how Brian Baldinger believes Ezra Cleveland had a good game against Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit while the DT opposite him had career games.


Not 8 whole million, closer to 20 million based on projected growth. In business, a CEO can be fired for hitting 1% growth when the projected growth is 5%. It is pretty basic stuff my guy, that if you have a business that is hitting 3% growth pretty consistently over 12 years and then sees a 3 % drop while its competitor in St Louis sees its biggest spike, there is an issue. Which is the real reason the Manager (not GM) of the Cubs was fired. Why do I need to explain basic business to you? Do you really think that an owner of a business doesn't care about decreases in revenue?




You are an enabler and that is fine. Mediocre football is good enough for you and as you said, you don't deserve better despite your intense loyalty to this franchise for decades. Normally I would argue fans like you do deserve better, but you think otherwise and you would know better than I what you deserve.

Can we please get rid of this guy, my god. Disgusting behavior from a member of this board.

Disgusting? Could you elaborate?

Did I accuse him of being someone who p*sses in someone's cheerios? Did I compare his intellect to that of a 3 year olds? You know, personal attacks like those?

He said he didn't deserve better from this Vikings team, and I am taking his word for it. That is all.

[Rhodes Closed]

Can we please get rid of this guy, my god. Disgusting behavior from a member of this board.

Disgusting? Could you elaborate?

Did I accuse him of being someone who p*sses in someone's cheerios? Did I compare his intellect to that of a 3 year olds? You know, personal attacks like those?

He said he didn't deserve better from this Vikings team, and I am taking his word for it. That is all.

That is not what he said, and you know it. You are misrepresenting what he says so you can slide in with a sly dig and commit to a good fan/bad fan act. Get out of here with this load of crap.

[9man]

I think you should drop it right there Stump.

We all want to see the Vikings win a Superbowl every bit as much as you. That you believe you have any personal control over that outcome, especially for someone who appeals to stats and facts as much as you do, suggests you are the one who needs the reality check.

That is like saying you don't have personal control over the outcome of an election because your vote only counts as one in 100 million.

The impact is tiny, not even measurable, but as a fanbase we dictate the team ownership attempts to put on the field.

This is so far off base here. Fans have no control over the team on the field. Your statement makes it sound like the fans have say in who ownership hires for GM or head coach. Even the Packers with their public ownership do not give that control to to the shareholders.

[S197]

Considering we've veered quite astray from the topic of Teddy Bridgewater, lets just shut this one down.