Mothman wrote:
Those are just the 4 closest calls. Every year since 1976 represents a year in which they failed to get back to the Super Bowl. It's 4 decades, not just 4 seasons. Better ownership, better management, better personnel and coaching decisions (and yes, better luck) all could have led to more opportunities and an actual Super Bowl appearance. Maybe even a win.
So who gets the blame for last year's playoff loss? You could argue a better kicker makes that I guess, but I see that as just the same cursed luck that has haunted this franchise over it's entire life, Superbowl appearances included. It seems like God himself could have been the kicker there and it still would have missed. I keep telling myself that statistically this has to revert to the mean, that eventually the fundamental laws of nature itself will restored balance in the universe where if the Vikings don't get a crazy positive break in a significant game, at least they won't continually be on the receiving end of crazy bad breaks in significant games.
I do agree that the missteps have been legion over the years, but then again, they've been that way for a lot of the league's teams. Every team makes poor FA and draft decisions. Every team suffers from odd occurrences that really can't be forseen even if they make the right moves. If a team's success is measured by it's competitiveness over a long period, though, the Vikings would be right up there near the top by most measures.
As far as Patterson goes, I don't see that as quite as costly as some other draft blunders made over the years.
Mothman wrote:
I think it's had an obvious and substantial cost, easily seen and measured. I'll leave it at that.
Sure, you can measure the cost of a gamble and claim it was a bad gamble if it doesn't pay off, but you have to judge the merit of the gamble based on what is known at the time it's made. If you had odds of 90% you'd win on a bet and you lose, that doesn't mean you made a bad bet.
As far as Patterson goes, everyone would agree that was gamble, but the real question is was it a bad or unwarranted gamble at the time it was made? I'd say that isn't as clear-cut. It certainly was not as big a gamble as the Vikings took with a guy like Troy Williamson at #7, or Christian Ponder at #12. Patterson was a guy everyone knew was raw, but he was big, fast and dynamic with the ball in his hands. I think there was a decent chance he could be developed with solid coaching. Further, even if Patterson hasn't turned out to be a consistent WR, he has contributed significantly on special teams and been a difference-maker there as he was predicted to be pre-draft. Spielman got one of the two things he moved up to get.
Also, I don't think the book is closed on Patterson just yet, even with the Vikes drafting Treadwell. There simply has to be a way to get the guy involved in the passing game more. I do not understand why he isn't seeing the field as a receiver, but if anything, that strikes me as a coaching problem more than anything. Hopefully Turner and his staff can find a way to fix that this year.