As far as I'm concerned, making the playoffs doesn't make a team a serious Super Bowl contender. I don't believe the 10-6 Vikings in 2012 or the 11-5 Vikings in 2015 were ever serious threats to go all the way. Do you think either of those teams had a realistic chance to run the table in the postseason? Neither even won a game.Pondering Her Percy wrote: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
I'm making a distinction between teams with winning records and teams that actually have a realistic chance to win a Super Bowl. I realize some fans feel any team that makes the playoffs is automatically a contender. That's true in the most literal sense but I think it's clear every season that some of those playoffs teams really don't have what it takes to go all the way.
Are their failings are somehow supposed to justify the Vikings failings? What's the relevance? It's cold comfort that other teams have OL issues too.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. And that was WITH Okung and Sweezy last year. They havent had a good OL in a long time.
My point was simply that a good defense isn't enough. I didn't say the Vikings can't contend. I've already made it clear in this thread that I'm not ruling out potential success for them. I just don't think it's likely they will be legitimate Super Bowl contenders in the near future. I reject the argument that building a good defense somehow precluded building a better offense than they've assembled over the past 5 or 6 years because they've had the time, resources and opportunities to do better and they haven't managed to build a well-balanced team.Right because we only have 1/3 of a team right? Or maybe 2/3? Which means we cant contend.
I gave up trying to change your mind about either Zimmer or Spielman a long time ago. I'm simply trying to get you to stop dismissing legitimate doubts about them as if they're unfounded. Not everyone shares your deep faith in Spielman and Zimmer or your view that a bad OL basically explains the team's 2016 season. Building through the draft is a great philosophy but it still has to be done effectively. Zimmer's likable but he still needs to solve team problems and improve areas of weakness other than the pass defense and he hasn't really accomplished that.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.
I have yet to see anybody here explain why I should believe a GM and coach with almost no history of postseason success (Zimmer hasn't experienced it since he was an assistant coach on Barry Switzer's staff in Dallas, the Vikes have 1 playoff win since Spielman arrived)) and almost no history of building successful offenses are going to transform this struggling Vikings team into a Super Bowl contender. They've just doubled down on a QB who's never played in a postseason game either and an offensive coordinator who's had minimal success when calling plays. I understand that hope springs eternal but when I look at the team's problems, how they developed and who is trying to fix them, I'm highly skeptical of their ability to get the job done because their history suggests it's unlikely. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence.