Accountability

[PurpleKoolaid]

Jim is right about another post he made as well. He was talking about leadership, and how the Vikings don't really have any, on the O or D. At the time I thought it was kind of silly, we are talking about grown men. But I think he nailed it.

IMO, Greenway isn't a leader on the D. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Hodges gets his job (or whatever rotation of LB's they use). And that's too bad because I think Greenway is a stand up guy, and helps the Cites with his charity works. I think Smith is going to have to take on the role of the leader in the D. His play talks for itself.

On the O side of the ball, I have no idea. Please, don't anyone say Jennings. Maybe Teddy with a year or 2 under his belt, but what happens if he regresses during that time? Like #7 did.

We are in a worse position now then when the Wilf's took over.

[PurpleMustReign]

Jim used the word 'bereft' on this board. Im impressed!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Mothman]

Jim used the word 'bereft' on this board. Im impressed!

[Pondering Her Percy]

"Laughable"? Hardly.

I read your rant earlier so you didn't need to re-post it. However, as I hope you can see from reading my posts, I'm not the sort of fan who just embraces extremes and overreacts to each loss. I think the Vikes clearly have talent issues. In a broader sense, it might be more accurate to say they have personnel issues and when I refer to talent, I really mean it in that broader sense. Talent is an issue but so is the experience level of some of the players on the roster. The reliability and availability of some of the personnel is an issue too.

Saying the team has talent issues is FAR different than saying they are bereft of talent, which seems to be the focus of your response. I'm saying this team does not have a playoff-caliber combination of talent and experience. I think that's a pretty accurate assessment and depth plays a part in it. I'm not holding Spielman accountable for Peterson's absence but it's clearly a problem. The depth at RB has been inadequate to firmly establish a credible running game that concerns opposing defenses. There's some WR talent on the team but a lot of it is in serious need of development and at this point, it's getting harder and harder to see Jennings as anything but a disappointment. The depth at TE is such that losing Rudolph has clearly led to a real dropoff and since Rudolph has proven unreliable (ie: can't stay on the field), his overall value is becoming more and more questionable too. Talent that doesn't play isn't very helpful.

It should be painfully obvious after the last two weeks that there are talent issues on the starting o-line and who knows if the depth there is any good at all? It's largely unproven.

I think the defensive personnel has been upgraded. There are some good players on that side of the ball and some players with the potential to be great but what is the goal here? Is it to be an average defense? A playoff-caliber defense? A Super Bowl defense? I certainly don't see the making of a Super Bowl-caliber defense on the current defensive roster, although some of these players could eventually help anchor that kind of unit.

The defense has taken a step forward when compared to the 2013 unit but the HUGE jump you're talking about has resulted in a unit that, thus far, is statistically comparable (and a little inferior) to the 2012 defense. That defense was part of a playoff team so I'm not being critical. I'm impressed with their progress but I'm also keeping it in perspective. "Better than last year" isn't the end goal. the defense isn't a finished product and it's another area that still needs more talent.

Again, I'm not saying the roster is bereft of talent and I'm not attacking Spielman here either but if the goal is to put together a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, please explain to me how the suggestion that this current Vikings team has talent issues is laughable. I sure don't see a roster that is capable of challenging for a title and I doubt you do either. I don't expect to see that yet either. I'm just saying: the talent/personnel issues on this team are undeniable.

When you use "no talent" in the sense of inexperience then I understand. I took it more as saying there was minimal talent in general which I don't agree with. Talent and inexperience are two different things. As for the offensive line issues, as I said before, Fusco is a much bigger loss than people think and it doesn't help Loadholts case that Ducasse is next to him. Same goes for Kalil with Johnson. Also, I never said that this defense being better than last years was the "end goal" but the fact that it is improving and there are a lot of young key players, the arrow is pointing in the right direction.

Being the 2nd-3rd youngest team in the league, the Super Bowl chances are minimal from the start. Look at Jacksonville and St. Louis. They are in the same boat, however I think we are the more talent team out of the bunch. However, these 3 teams are teams that have a bright future IMO. Yet, they still have a long way to go. With us having new coaches, new scheme, new offense, etc. its going to take some time. As of late, I like the talent that Spielman has brought in via the draft and FA. Jennings would be the biggest question mark though, however, with good QB play, he is pretty reliable. Outside of that, the young core group we have is definitely a promising one but not many Vikings fans have patience.

[Mothman]

When you use "no talent" in the sense of inexperience then I understand.

I didn't use "no talent" at all. I said there were issues with the team's talent level.

I took it more as saying there was minimal talent in general which I don't agree with. Talent and inexperience are two different things.

They're different but generally speaking, when referencing the comparative level of talent on NFL teams, I think people are usually referring to more than just natural ability. Talent manifests itself through that ability plus skill and experience. A rookie QB might have the natural ability of Tom Brady but in terms of NFL talent level, that player isn't truly comparable to Tom Brady until he can translate his natural ability into his performance like Brady.

As for the offensive line issues, as I said before, Fusco is a much bigger loss than people think and it doesn't help Loadholts case that Ducasse is next to him. Same goes for Kalil with Johnson.

Then wouldn't you say there are talent issues along that line? Johnson and Ducasse are examples of such issues, although even though I don't think either guard is very good, I think Kalil and Loadholt both have some problems with their games that have nothing to do with who is playing next to them.

Being the 2nd-3rd youngest team in the league, the Super Bowl chances are minimal from the start. Look at Jacksonville and St. Louis. They are in the same boat, however I think we are the more talent team out of the bunch. However, these 3 teams are teams that have a bright future IMO. Yet, they still have a long way to go.

Right... and one of the things all of those teams need to do is continue upgrading their talent.

With us having new coaches, new scheme, new offense, etc. its going to take some time. As of late, I like the talent that Spielman has brought in via the draft and FA. Jennings would be the biggest question mark though, however, with good QB play, he is pretty reliable. Outside of that, the young core group we have is definitely a promising one but not many Vikings fans have patience.

That's true, a lot of fans are impatient but I understand that we basically have no choice but patience. Once they canned the previous coaching staff and the Ponder experiment failed, there was only one way to proceed and that was to go back to the drawing board. It's going to take time to build a winner.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I didn't use "no talent" at all. I said there were issues with the team's talent level.
They're different but generally speaking, when referencing the comparative level of talent on NFL teams, I think people are usually referring to more than just natural ability. Talent manifests itself through that ability plus skill and experience. A rookie QB might have the natural ability of Tom Brady but in terms of NFL talent level, that player isn't truly comparable to Tom Brady until he can translate his natural ability into his performance like Brady.
Then wouldn't you say there are talent issues along that line? Johnson and Ducasse are examples of such issues, although even though I don't think either guard is very good, I think Kalil and Loadholt both have some problems with their games that have nothing to do with who is playing next to them.
Right... and one of the things all of those teams need to do is continue upgrading their talent.
That's true, a lot of fans are impatient but I understand that we basically have no choice but patience. Once they canned the previous coaching staff and the Ponder experiment failed, there was only one way to proceed and that was to go back to the drawing board. It's going to take time to build a winner.

I agree with your take on this. You put it in a much better prospective than others do.

However, I look at talent as what a player can and can't do and what they are capable of. There are a lot of guys on this team that are capable to be very good but aren't there yet due to inexperience. The talent that many of these guys have is there, they just need more experience to showcase it.

As for the guards, I said from day 1 that they were both bad. I've wanted Johnson gone for 2 years now and Ducasse is a backup for a reason. I think many do underestimate how much a good guard helps a offensive tackle out. Loadholt is a very good run blocker but has slower feet in the pass game. However overall, I think he is an above average RT. But as of late he has looked a lot worse than he has in the past and I believe that's part of Fusco not being there. Kalil hasn't looked great at all either. Not saying a good guard would entirely turn him around, but I think it helps him that much more.

[Pseudo Everything]

Here is some accountability: Fox has removed Mike Goldberg from calling the Vikings-Bills game.

Thank you Fox. I usually don't complain about the announcers but last Sunday I've never heard a worse play-by-play performance than the one given my Mike Goldberg. I kept saying to myself ... who is this guy? Turns out he's an MMA announcer. Figures.

[fiestavike]

Here is some accountability: Fox has removed Mike Goldberg from calling the Vikings-Bills game.

Thank you Fox. I usually don't complain about the announcers but last Sunday I've never heard a worse play-by-play performance than the one given my Mike Goldberg. I kept saying to myself ... who is this guy? Turns out he's an MMA announcer. Figures.

If he hadn't lashed out at people on twitter he would be calling our game this weekend as well. It wasn't a great call, but it wasn't really worse than the tandem we had the two previous weeks, or any of the other D team announcers we've been stuck with all season. Rhonde is up there with Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott as former players trying to call a game. That's a bad list to be on.

[frosted]

If he hadn't lashed out at people on twitter he would be calling our game this weekend as well. It wasn't a great call, but it wasn't really worse than the tandem we had the two previous weeks, or any of the other D team announcers we've been stuck with all season. Rhonde is up there with Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott as former players trying to call a game. That's a bad list to be on.

I'd have to disagree, Goldberg was by far the worst professional play-by-play guy I have ever had the displeasure of being subjected to. And for me, it's not even close. He was a clown. It's embarrassing, showing up to your job and performing that way - terrible.

[fiestavike]

I'd have to disagree, Goldberg was by far the worst professional play-by-play guy I have ever had the displeasure of being subjected to. And for me, it's not even close. He was a clown. It's embarrassing, showing up to your job and performing that way - terrible.

I agree he was terrible, but I think in every game we've played this year the announcers have been caught looking down the wrong team's sheet at least once. Goldberg was terrible, but all the guys who have called our games have been terrible. The fact that Fox cannot field a competent set of announcers for each game on sunday demonstrates that calling a football game is not as easy as it seems. Or perhaps I am only slightly more sympathetic because I have tried to do it! Its a challenge and to make it look easy you have to be really good. If Goldberg hadn't got into it with the critics on twitter he might have had a chance to improve but he threw that away!

[Crax]

Turns out he's an MMA announcer. Figures.

I'm not sure anyone who follows MMA really likes him either. People have complained about Golberg for years and talk about watching it on mute just so they don't have to listen to him. There's been numerous threads on MMA forums about all the dumb stuff he has said and/or screwed up when doing MMA as well.

I was horrified when I realized it was him that was announcing the Vikings game.

[chicagopurple]

Sadly,we dont rate a top notched announcer....we are just a backwoods market at this point. I wonder how bad the announcers are for the Raiders, Jax, etc???