Vikings can finish last in the NFC North and be happy

[indianation65]

Last is for losers, never ever be happy being last. Heck, 2nd place sucks! Every year there are supposed good teams that blow, and supposed bad teams that surprise. There is no reason the Vikings can't be a successful team. The Rams went from being awful to be the best show on turf way back, and many teams have followed suit. Actually, the Vikes have done so already, but again were cursed in the end. This could be the year...think it, know it, demand it and expect it! Someone, some team this year that "everyone" expects to be terrible will be great. Why not those wearing purple?

...wisdom through high expectations

[Texas Vike]

I've been reading comments and posts for the past year or two about our situation somehow being hopeless, pointless, or generally futile because the Packers, Lions, and Bears are so strong and finishing last equates to failure. While all teams' goal is the SB, you can put every team in 3 basic categories: contenders, on the verge, and rebuilding. The Packers, Lions, and Bears are either contenders or on the verge, and we are rebuilding. For those 3 teams, every win and loss means everything because they could possibly all be in the playoffs and finish within one game of each other. And is it really shameful to finish 4th in a division where the top 3 teams are all 11-5?

The Vikings primary goal as a rebuilding team is improving across the board, but more importantly discovering and establishing what sort of team we are going to be for years to come. And because of that it makes no sense to even look at the NFC North standings, we just need to take it one opponent at a time and worry about playing better, even more than the actual win when it comes down to it. Once we establish ourselves, the wins will come, and in a year or two those wins will be as crucial as they were in 2009, but for now pretend we're not even in a division. Just focus on our improvement.

And feel good about that, because by the time we start to get rolling and near our peak, who knows where the other teams will be? The Bears are an older team whose best players are vets who could fall off at anytime. Maybe the Packers luck with draft depth will run out, they lose one of their core guys and the rest ain't enough to keep them "elite"? And the Lions have hardly built a foundation of concrete. Between Stafford's injuries and the defensive holes, the jury's still out on them IMO. Just because their time is now, doesn't make it any more likely for them to win it over the long haul. In ten years time, those other teams will probably have just as many SB's as they do now.

So don't feel bad that the "freshmen" Vikings don't get as many girls as the "seniors" do right now. We've got a few too many pimples and don't have much hair on our balls yet, but our time is coming, and when it does, those other guys are going to be about 40 pounds fatter, college dropouts with stacks of paternity suits at their doorsteps, and we'll have clean clear skin and VERY hairy balls!!!!

I think this is a great post both in its overall argument and its closing metaphor. Very eloquent and convincing!

Our mission this year must be to give Ponder enough tools so that we can objectively assess his long-term viability at the most important (by far) position in football. If things start to come together we might be close to .500, but it would be really naive to expect more this year.

[Mothman]

I think this is a great post both in its overall argument and its closing metaphor. Very eloquent and convincing! .

I'm not sure eloquent is the best word to describe a metaphor involving hairy balls but it's effective.

[PurpleMustReign]

I'm more eloquent is the best word to describe a metaphor involving hairy balls but it's effective.

Come again Jim? Lol...

[Mothman]

Come again Jim? Lol...

That's what I get for hurriedly modifying a sentence instead of just re-typing the whole thing. I've edited the original post to read as intended.

[J. Kapp 11]

So the Vikings will be happy because their balls are hairy?

This is a very confusing metaphor, especially given the current trend of men shaving their body hair (I've heard).

[Just Me]

So the Vikings will be happy because their balls are hairy?

This is a very confusing metaphor, especially given the current trend of men shaving their body hair (I've heard).

For some reason this thread has taken a turn that reminded me of this SNL skit

[Texas Vike]

I'm not sure eloquent is the best word to describe a metaphor involving hairy balls but it's effective.

Funny. Eloquence does not imply elegance or refinement. In fact, it's possible to be down right uncouth yet eloquent. For clarity's sake, I found the OP to be a very clearly conveyed idea; articulate, even if the image of a hairy man's privates is a bit crass.

Now, to run w/ the metaphor... not all post-pubescents are necessarily stronger than their pimpled younger siblings. I think Cutler and Marshal are moody and lack the kind of disposition required to win it all. The Lions' personality is also problematic; they've become a rough and dirty team. While that can help with intimidating rivals, it has also hurt them w/ personal foul penalties at very inopportune times. The Pack is always tough, but they are one Rogers' injury away from mediocrity and given that they play the dirty Lions twice a year, who knows what might happen. The Vikings might end up like Anthony Michael Hall's character in 16 Candles--they get the girl in the end despite all the pimples and underdevelopment.

[VikingLord]

Hairy balls aside, lots of things have to go right. True, the Vikings are a young team, the their competitors in the NFC North are not that much older at key positions like QB. Unless something crazy happens, Rodgers, Cutler, and Stafford will all be playing at a high level for the next 5-10 years. And while it's true that the Bears field an older defense and the Lions an older offensive line, the Packers turned their defense over bigtime this offseason and may be younger overall than the Vikes on that side of the ball. So I don't think it's as simple as "wait a few years and we'll be back in it".

I think the main reason the Vikes find themselves in the situation they are in is in large part due to the decisions the Wilfs made regarding hiring coaches and then the lack of organizational structure and accountability the Wilfs implemented around those coaches after they bought the team. Just a year after buying the team the Wilfs, who are real estate developers, summarily canned Mike Tice and then went on to not only hire his replacement themselves, but to hire the first "hot" candidate to walk through the door. Remember, this was the same offseason that the Packers hired McCarthy. There were other solid candidates out there, but the Wilfs focused on Childress and only Childress, and they got him.

They compounded that mistake by then failing to create a sound organizational structure that made it clear who had the power to do what and to whom. Chilly ran with that lack of clarity, and the litany of resulting mistakes and situations is too numerous to list. Remember Marcus Robinson getting punted from the team around Christmas because Chilly didn't like what he had to say to the press? The Troy Williamson funeral pay debacle that required other players to intervene to prevent outright mutiny? Moving up to "snag" Tarvaris Jackson to be the QB of the future? Trading a 3rd-rounder for Moss, only to cut him a few weeks later because, once again, Chilly didn't like what he had to say? And the Wilfs signed Childress to an extension, only to cut him loose before the end of the very next season. Those are just some examples of the power Childress enjoyed in the absence of any clear structure or accountability.

Did the Wilfs learn from this experience? If they did, they sure had a funny way of showing it as they essentially repeated the exact same scenario with Frazier. No interviews of other candidates. No choosing a guy with GM experience to run a comprehensive interview process to make that choice. No change in the management structure to assure that the coach didn't have too much power and his need to perform in the short-term didn't harm the team's long-term prospects. The Wilfs themselves made the decision to hire yet another coach. And as a result we watched the Vikes ship a 6th rounder to start a washed-up QB that Frazier had experience with, a reach at #12 for a QB who might turn out, but probably wasn't good enough coming out to warrant that high of a pick and who didn't get an opportunity to start until the middle of his rookie season, Remi Ayodele acquired for fairly substantial money, and a stated philosophy of focusing on running and defending the run when the rest of the teams in the league are mostly focused on passing and defending the pass.

So after their Favre-fueled run in 2009 they have not just missed the playoffs, but finished last in their division in 2010 and 2011, and are likely to do so again this year. But they didn't just finish last in the division in 2011. No, they capped last year's finish off with a franchise-worst-tying 3-13.

So I don't agree that things will get better, at least not yet. The Wilfs took some steps to rectify the significant issues in the front office this last offseason, and that is good. But there are still some concerning things about the makeup of the team, and until those questions are answered (and given the reality that the other teams in the North are likely set at least at QB for the foreseeable future), I think a lot more has to happen than just time passing before the Vikings return to prominence. If the Vikes finish this season out of the post-season it will tie their longest such streak since the mid-80's. There is no doubt this is a critical season for them. But what is critical about it isn't necessarily their record at the end of it - IMHO, what is critical about it is what changes, if any, are made following it and whether those changes are based on facts that emerged as the season went on or fiction about how those who are at the controls believe things should be or blindly hope they will be. The Wilfs are wealthy and I'm sure very intelligent people, but it might just be time to admit they might not know everything and concede to structuring the team in a way that has proven to work in many other places over a long period of tme. It might be time for them to just provide capital support to an actual GM who has all the powers (and accountability) of an actual GM, let that GM choose his coaches, and get on with the business of getting back to the top.

[Mothman]

So I don't agree that things will get better, at least not yet. The Wilfs took some steps to rectify the significant issues in the front office this last offseason, and that is good. But there are still some concerning things about the makeup of the team, and until those questions are answered (and given the reality that the other teams in the North are likely set at least at QB for the foreseeable future), I think a lot more has to happen than just time passing before the Vikings return to prominence. If the Vikes finish this season out of the post-season it will tie their longest such streak since the mid-80's. There is no doubt this is a critical season for them. But what is critical about it isn't necessarily their record at the end of it - IMHO, what is critical about it is what changes, if any, are made following it and whether those changes are based on facts that emerged as the season went on or fiction about how those who are at the controls believe things should be or blindly hope they will be.

There's reason to be encouraged that they will take a fact-based approach. The changes they made this year were a logical reaction to last season. The Wilfs recognized the need to change the power structure. Spielman and Frazier recognized the team's biggest issues (pass defense, pass protection, receiving talent, age) and took steps to address most of them.

The Wilfs are wealthy and I'm sure very intelligent people, but it might just be time to admit they might not know everything and concede to structuring the team in a way that has proven to work in many other places over a long period of tme. It might be time for them to just provide capital support to an actual GM who has all the powers (and accountability) of an actual GM, let that GM choose his coaches, and get on with the business of getting back to the top.

They just converted to a very traditional power structure by making Spielman the "actual" GM. He has the power and accountability of most GMs. He may not have hiring or firing power over the HC but you can bet he has an influential voice in that regard. We don't know if he wanted Frazier to be HC or not but for all we know he would have hired Frazier anyway if he'd had the authority. After all, Frazier was a qualified candidate who knew the roster and showed a steady hand after taking over for Childress in 2010. It looks like they are already getting on with the business of getting back to the top and using a proven structure to do it. I have no idea if they'll be successful or not but at this point, all we or the Wilfs can do is wait and see what happens... and hope for the best.

Jim

[Eli]

And is it really shameful to finish 4th in a division where the top 3 teams are all 11-5?

The top three teams in the NFC North will NOT be finishing with eleven or more wins. The Packers, maybe. The Bears and the Lions both have issues going into the season, the Bears especially. The Vikings could conceivably finish above either of them.

But if they do finish last, I think the original premise still holds - they could be satisfied with their season. If they finish with six or more wins and show some improvement in key areas like QB, offensive line, and defensive secondary, it will have been a successful season.

[Lash Man]

As a die hard Vikings fan since 1976 I will NEVER be happy with a last place finish but if we lose every game I will ALWAYS be a fan of the purple .

[Raptorman]

The top three teams in the NFC North will NOT be finishing with eleven or more wins. The Packers, maybe. The Bears and the Lions both have issues going into the season, the Bears especially. The Vikings could conceivably finish above either of them.

But if they do finish last, I think the original premise still holds - they could be satisfied with their season. If they finish with six or more wins and show some improvement in key areas like QB, offensive line, and defensive secondary, it will have been a successful season.

I don't think the Bear, Packers and Lions all finish 11-5. I expect the Packers to win less than 10. But that's just me.

[J. Kapp 11]

Funny. Eloquence does not imply elegance or refinement. In fact, it's possible to be down right uncouth yet eloquent. For clarity's sake, I found the OP to be a very clearly conveyed idea; articulate, even if the image of a hairy man's privates is a bit crass.

Now, to run w/ the metaphor... not all post-pubescents are necessarily stronger than their pimpled younger siblings. I think Cutler and Marshal are moody and lack the kind of disposition required to win it all. The Lions' personality is also problematic; they've become a rough and dirty team. While that can help with intimidating rivals, it has also hurt them w/ personal foul penalties at very inopportune times. The Pack is always tough, but they are one Rogers' injury away from mediocrity and given that they play the dirty Lions twice a year, who knows what might happen. The Vikings might end up like Anthony Michael Hall's character in 16 Candles--they get the girl in the end despite all the pimples and underdevelopment.

Well, it didn't take you long to make an impression, did it?

Let me see if I can write with eloquence here:

You can put a tuxedo on a baboon and teach him which fork to use for the salad course, but in the end he's still a baboon (one would think with hairy balls, but I've never actually checked).

All you've done here is dress the baboon in a tuxedo. To come to the conclusion that the Vikings will finish out of the cellar is simply rationalizing. Unfortunately, there's no denying the facts ... the other three teams in the division are more talented top to bottom through the roster than we are. Finishing above last place will take something extraordinary happening. Like Aaron Rodgers going down for the season.

Does that mean I'm satisfied finishing last? Hell no. Do I enjoy being realistic? Not on your life. I watched every game last year with the hope that THIS would be the week the nightmare would end. I want my Vikes to win every game, just as I have for the past 42 years. But there's no way at this point that anybody with an ounce of realism would say we deserve anything other than a last-place prediction.

Eloquent enough?

[losperros]

The top three teams in the NFC North will NOT be finishing with eleven or more wins. The Packers, maybe. The Bears and the Lions both have issues going into the season, the Bears especially. The Vikings could conceivably finish above either of them.

But if they do finish last, I think the original premise still holds - they could be satisfied with their season. If they finish with six or more wins and show some improvement in key areas like QB, offensive line, and defensive secondary, it will have been a successful season.

That's exactly how I'm looking at it. Maybe I'm deliberately trying to keep my expectations low, but as Joe Kapp 11 pointed out, the other NFC North teams are more talented than the Vikings at this point. So, if the Vikings show that they are actually rebuilding and progressing by winning six or more games, that will be a successful season to me.