no wonder we have bad karma

[Jordysghost]

Kuhn has been there forever too... I assumed he was one of theirs.

The Kuhnster spent a very brief period of time with the Steelers, Im not sure he ever really made the roster there though, we have had him since is second year in the NFL.

[Raptorman]

And THIS is the reason you and I will never agree on improvement.

Based on your comment here about the last 20 games under Frazier, you appear to believe the Vikings were headed in the right direction at the end of 2013. Quick show of hands, Vikings fans ... how many of you agree with that?

You're going to disagree with me here, but my opinion is that Zimmer inherited a worse mess than Frazier did. In nearly 50 years as a Vikings fan, I have never been more frustrated than I was in 2013. This was a team coming off a playoff appearance, and they were patently horrible. Who was the quarterback? It was Ponder ... no, Cassel ... no wait, Ponder ... I mean Freeman ... um, Ponder ... check that, Cassel. And the defense was DEAD LAST in virtually every category, including points allowed. That season couldn't end soon enough for me. So forgive me if my starting point for improvement is slightly different than yours.

By the way, that 20-game stat you quote? Sorry, Jim, but that's a clear cherry pick.

Yes, over Frazier's last 20 games, the Vikings were 9-10-1. But how convenient ... that stat extends back EXACTLY to the final four games of 2012, when they went on that memorable 4-game winning streak to go from 6-6 to 10-6. But you didn't mention that prior to those four wins, the Vikings had lost 4 of 5.

And it completely ignores the 3-win debacle of 2011. I mean, we could just as easily compare Frazier's first 20 games (4-16) to Zimmer's first 20 (9-11). It's no less legitimate a comparison.

Finally, if you pick ANY 20 GAMES of Frazier's tenure, the BEST he did was 11-9. All of a sudden, Zimmer's 9-11 isn't looking that bad.

Allow me to be perfectly honest here ... my analysis of the Vikings' improvement is my own subjective opinion, based on what I SEE, and on what I BELIEVE the future holds. I could very well be wrong. Serve up the crow if I am. But you will NEVER convince me that the Vikings were better off at the end of 2013 than they are right now.

There was only one season that was more frustrating than 2013. The year of Les. Unless you have lived through that you have no idea what football hell is. It was so bad, even Bud Grant couldn't take it. I think he came out of retirement to save the Vikings from being kicked out of Minnesota.

[Mothman]

There was only one season that was more frustrating than 2013. The year of Les. Unless you have lived through that you have no idea what football hell is. It was so bad, even Bud Grant couldn't take it. I think he came out of retirement to save the Vikings from being kicked out of Minnesota.

LOL! I don't know if they were in any danger of being kicked out but bud did come out of retirement to help get things back on track.

That Steckel season was the worst I've suffered through as a Vikings fan but I honestly found 2011 harder to deal with than 2013 and 2010 was even worse (for me anyway). That season featured everything from the sad preseason begging to get Favre to return to the often aggravating Childress in his final season as coach, the trade for and subsequent release of Moss, the mid-season coaching change, the collapse of the dome and all while knowing the way the team was being managed was setting us fans up for some bad years and a big rebuilding project. It was brutal.

2013 felt like an echo of that season to me: more mismanagement, more inevitable change, another disappointing year.

I get the feeling the Wilfs are genuinely interested in building a winner in Minnesota but it's been a pretty rough ride since they bought the team.

[Raptorman]

LOL! I don't know if they were in any danger of being kicked out but bud did come out of retirement to help get things back on track.

That Steckel season was the worst I've suffered through as a Vikings fan but I honestly found 2011 harder to deal with than 2013 and 2010 was even worse (for me anyway). That season featured everything from the sad preseason begging to get Favre to return to the often aggravating Childress in his final season as coach, the trade for and subsequent release of Moss, the mid-season coaching change, the collapse of the dome and all while knowing the way the team was being managed was setting us fans up for some bad years and a big rebuilding project. It was brutal.

2013 felt like an echo of that season to me: more mismanagement, more inevitable change, another disappointing year.

I get the feeling the Wilfs are genuinely interested in building a winner in Minnesota but it's been a pretty rough ride since they bought the team.

Well the key is not simple. It is a combination of owner, GM, Coach and QB. Very few teams have put it together for a long period of time. The Patriots have for the last 15 seasons with Belicheat and Brady. Once they leave I am sure they will suffer for several years. The Packers have been lucky in the fact that they have had good QB's for 20 years. Finding the right combination your team is tough. It all starts with a good GM who the owners leave alone.

[Mothman]

Well the key is not simple. It is a combination of owner, GM, Coach and QB. Very few teams have put it together for a long period of time. The Patriots have for the last 15 seasons with Belicheat and Brady. Once they leave I am sure they will suffer for several years. The Packers have been lucky in the fact that they have had good QB's for 20 years. Finding the right combination your team is tough. It all starts with a good GM who the owners leave alone.

I agree. Unfortunately, it took the Wilfs 7 years before they even created a GM position and promoted Spielman into it. They seem to be giving him autonomy but who knows if he's the right man for the job? It's tough to tell at this point.

The Vikes obviously haven't had the right coach/QB combination over that time, unless they have it now (hopefully, they do).

The wait for a GM made it tougher. I suppose the Triangle of Authority model could have worked if they'd landed exactly the right people in each role...

It would sure be nice to see the Vikes put together a run like the Patriots have managed. Heck, even half of that run would be great!

[losperros]

The wait for a GM made it tougher. I suppose the Triangle of Authority model could have worked if they'd landed exactly the right people in each role...

I don't think so, Jim. Too many cooks in the kitchen with the TOA, in my view.

Even if Spielman doesn't work out, I'm hoping the Wilfs stick with having a GM. I think it's the better way to delegate authority and stay with a vision for the team.

[Mothman]

I don't think so, Jim. Too many cooks in the kitchen with the TOA, in my view.

Maybe I was being too generous with that comment and it wouldn't have been a workable model with anybody. I remember you and I both wanted the Wilfs to hire a GM before they even hired a coach and we were both disappointed when they didn't go that route and plunged ahead by hiring Childress It's hard not to feel like they wasted a lot of time finally getting to the point where they realized a GM was necessary.

Even if Spielman doesn't work out, I'm hoping the Wilfs stick with having a GM. I think it's the better way to delegate authority and stay with a vision for the team.

I agree.

[fiestavike]

Maybe I was being too generous with that comment and it wouldn't have been a workable model with anybody. I remember you and I both wanted the Wilfs to hire a GM before they even hired a coach and we were both disappointed when they didn't go that route and plunged ahead by hiring Childress It's hard not to feel like they wasted a lot of time finally getting to the point where they realized a GM was necessary.
I agree.

I still think the Wilfs are a huge upgrade over the two previous ownership regimes.

[Wild Bill]

I made that long post above, walked away from the computer and realized I could have just posted "WAHHHHH! I want them to win!".

Oh well, it was cathartic.

Cathartic and well stated. I experience the same feelings but could never express them as well. I hope you felt a little better afterwards.

Also Karma comes from the team AND the fans.

[Mothman]

Cathartic and well stated. I experience the same feelings but could never express them as well. I hope you felt a little better afterwards.

Thanks. I did!

[Wild Bill]

I can't quite figure out a way to say what I want to say without sounding like a jerk, but I agree. Its very obvious that this team is far better than those teams. Its incomprehensible to me that it isn't blatantly obvious to all.

2013 was one of my lowest points as a Viking fan. To be last or next to last in {I think 3 of 4 important categories} on defense just made me shudder. We have gotten better that way but I expect more.
One thing I do like is management seems to be intent on being faster this should pay dividends when we play in the new stadium.
To be realisticly critical is better than blind optimism. I don't often see blind criticism here usually the poster gives stats or specific points to backup their opinions. If that brings bad karma so be it !!!

[cstelter]

I've seen really good Vikes teams and they sure don't look like this. I'm fed up with the team being mediocre for the vast majority of the last 15 years:

In the '70s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 8 times and the Super Bowl 4 times.
In the '80s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 5 times and the conference championship once.
In the '90s, they reached the playoffs 7 times and the conference championship once.
They reached the championship in 2000 as well but since then, they've made the playoffs just 4 times in 14 years, winning once and advancing to the conference championship in 2009.

Gotta take you to task a bit to illuminate one aspect of negativity. In reading through your stats above, it seems to me that it ought to read:

In the '70s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 8 times and the Super Bowl 4 times.
In the '80s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 5 times and the conference championship once.
In the '90s, they reached the playoffs 7 times and the conference championship once.
In the '00s, they reached the playoffs 5 times and the conference championship twice.

As stated this way, one could easily consider that the '00's were more successful than the 80's and arguably more successful than the 90's considering how many playoffs in the 90's ended in 1 and done. Twice in the 00's we got one game from the SB.

The above is a poor picture when you compare the past 3 decades against the 70's. It fully makes your point. No need to try to make that last line look even poorer. Most of us know what a sham that extra NFCC game in 00's was anyway-- at least the other NFCC game per decade the last 3 was competitive with us having a fair shot at winning each of them.

I've been reading your posts for 15 years I think, and I know you are quite fair and balanced and objective. But this post? Not terrible, but I get the folks who see more negativity than necessary.

[Skoltastic_Voyage]

I agree on the point we reap what we sow I guess, however I wanted to say something about the raiders forums, when Ponder went there I visited their forums often and kept doing so. After there first game the people were saying things like "I know we won't win any games this year but is it too much to ask to be competitive?". Sadly we found ourselves sort of dumbfounded and lost after the SF game so it's not like we can't relate that sometimes the outlook is so poor you feel like YOU yourself are being tortured for liking a team.

On where we are... When Ponder was QB he would extend drives by using his legs and doing his best Cam Newton impression sometimes but every time he threw the ball I held my breath. Last year watching Teddy, especially on 3rd downs. I felt more at ease and decided we we're heading in the right direction but this year I find myself feeling less confident we are going in the right direction. The more things change the more they seem the same. We're back to trying to ride AD for all he is worth and teams seem to know what we're running before we do. I watch Packer games and inbetween puking thinking about Rodgers touching the beautiful Olivia Munn I watch him throw balls at the ground that his receivers slide for or quick stop and go routes that net first downs while when we throw the ball it seems to be where the other team wants it or can stop quickly. Maybe I have just lost my confidence in Vikings to play a good game period. The good plays are the exception not the rule here.

All that aside I'm hoping our team finds themselves and tries for a playoff spot. Skol Vikes!

[Mothman]

Gotta take you to task a bit to illuminate one aspect of negativity. In reading through your stats above, it seems to me that it ought to read:

In the '70s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 8 times and the Super Bowl 4 times.
In the '80s, the Vikes reached the playoffs 5 times and the conference championship once.
In the '90s, they reached the playoffs 7 times and the conference championship once.
In the '00s, they reached the playoffs 5 times and the conference championship twice.

As stated this way, one could easily consider that the '00's were more successful than the 80's and arguably more successful than the 90's considering how many playoffs in the 90's ended in 1 and done. Twice in the 00's we got one game from the SB.

The above is a poor picture when you compare the past 3 decades against the 70's. It fully makes your point. No need to try to make that last line look even poorer. Most of us know what a sham that extra NFCC game in 00's was anyway-- at least the other NFCC game per decade the last 3 was competitive with us having a fair shot at winning each of them.

I've been reading your posts for 15 years I think, and I know you are quite fair and balanced and objective. But this post? Not terrible, but I get the folks who see more negativity than necessary.

I get it too but how much negativity is necessary is subjective. That post was as negative as seemed necessary to me at the time. If it seemed excessive to others, I can live with that. After all, as I made clear, I was expressing my personal frustration with the team.

I do understand your point about the phrasing and I thought about putting it differently but I also wasn't sure how to write it. In retrospect, I suppose I could have said "In this century..." but it didn't occur to me at the time. Writing it as you did seemed inaccurate to me. Wouldn't the 00's only refer to the first decade of this century?

[Skoltastic_Voyage]

I get it too but how much negativity is necessary is subjective. That post was as negative as seemed necessary to me at the time. If it seemed excessive to others, I can live with that. After all, as I made clear, I was expressing my personal frustration with the team.

This is also a somewhat subjective viewpoint but I understand that a "true fan" cheers in the sun and in the rain and only sends well wishes the teams way and are there for support... Sadly I, as well as you are human and as I said above sometimes you feel punished for liking a team. I refuse to give up but I surely don't have to like what I (read as upper upper case) think is progress (as said before winning games).