Rand: Are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago?

[PurpleMustReign]

What is the information about Patterson?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[The Breeze]

I think they're better off.

It's a first year staff looking up vs a staff scrambling to stay relevant.

They are younger and have improved in areas much faster than I expected. They regressed on offense after a host of injuries and playing a rookie QB. No reason to think that won't improve next year.

Losing 3 close games .....2 of them basically on blocked kicks.....puts the record in a bit of a different light. This team was really close to being a 10-11 win team. I did not think that possible without AD and starting TB.

One last positive IMO, is the win against the Panthers. You can't always go by a teams final record to judge how good they are when you played them. The Panthers finished the year 7-1....losing to the Vikes and are playing good football. Beating them and beating them soundly was a good win for this team.

They've got areas to improve upon for sure. But there ar fewer, IMO, than at the end of last season.


edit: and as for glass half empty\full....
the question is if they're better off now than a year ago, not if they're a good or bad team at present. Maybe in terms of expectations, the glass is just too big right now.

[J. Kapp 11]

Fair enough: it was another losing season, the 4th in 5 years.

I think the W/L record, and the nature of the teams the Vikes lost to and defeated, tells us something about the Vikings themselves, about where they are as a team. I see it as more than just a a "glass half empty" way of viewing things. A 1-5 record in the division is bad. Those 3 teams are the Vikings primary competition. How they perform against them is significant.

I know I sound cynical today but I'm finding it difficult to be optimistic about a team that never beat a quality opponent this season.

Edit: I DO see some of the reasons for optimism that have been expressed. I'm encouraged by the progress Bridgewater showed over the course of the season and by the significant improvements in pass defense. My Vikings glass might be half empty but it not empty.

Please don't take offense at the glass-half-whatever statement. Let's just look at it for what it is. If you come at this question from the standpoint of what's wrong with the Vikings, your comments will will be slanted that way. If you're looking at what's right with the Vikings, your comments will be slanted that way. It's just human nature.

I'm not any more "right" than you are. We're just looking at it from different angles.

[Mothman]

Please don't take offense at the glass-half-whatever statement. Let's just look at it for what it is. If you come at this question from the standpoint of what's wrong with the Vikings, your comments will will be slanted that way. If you're looking at what's right with the Vikings, your comments will be slanted that way. It's just human nature.

I'm not any more "right" than you are. We're just looking at it from different angles.

I didn't take offense at all. In fact, I was responding to Craig Stelter's use of "glass half empty", not your use of "glass half full", but nothing either of you said offended me.

As I see it, this thread is all about our perceptions of the team anyway, so I wholeheartedly agree that neither of us is "right" here. I think you summed it up well by saying where one lands on the issue depends on if you look at it from the point of view of what's right with the team or what's wrong them. That's why, objectively, I can't really say the arrow is pointing up. For me, it's basically pointing sideways. I have no idea where the team is going from here. It's very unclear. If things go well, if they have a good offseason, get Peterson back, stay healthy next year, see good progress from young players, etc. they could be a very good team in 2015. On the other hand, we saw the Vikings make some real strides forward between 2011 and 2012 only to see them fall backward in 2013.

I just don't know what to expect...

[mansquatch]

This was in the stat thread, but deserves mentioning here: We finished 7th in the league in pass defense. That is an amazing turnaround and a tremendous reason to think we are better than 2013.

[Mothman]

I think the team has improved in some important areas (as if any area isn't important) and I'm ready to praise Zimmer for most of it. I'm excited about the off-season progress some of the young guys are bound to make, and I'm really looking forward to next year's draft and FA market for the Vikings.

After listening to the inside information gathered from Access Vikings regarding Cordarrelle Patterson, I now know what his problem is. I hope he can make a turn around. It seems as if it might be possible, especially since attitude does not play into it. So I'm hopeful.

I'm hopeful too. he needs to put in the work but they also need to give him the opportunities he needs to excel. heHe can't be very productive watching the games from Turner's doghouse.

That said, I agree with all you wrote above, Jim.

I'm sorry, folks, but the W/L record tells it all, which is why it's the determining factor in the standings, and we've seen too many losing and/or mediocre years from the Vikings lately.

I don't buy into the Vikings "would have" had more wins "if" they won a close game. Yeah, right. "If" the Queen had balls, she'd be King.

Good post, Craig, and thanks for the laugh!

[fiestavike]

Interesting to check the after season temperature around here...

I would look at it this way.

A year older...
Greenway, Robison, Jennings, Loadholt, Cassell, Peterson

A year wiser...
Rhodes (2), H. Smith (3?), J. Robinsn (3?), Blanton (2), Hodges (2), Barr (R), Cole (3), Floyd (2), Kalil (3), Fusco (3?), Wright (3?), C. Johnson (2?), Thielen (2), Patterson(2), Bridgewater(R), McKinnon(R).

To get such big contributions from players in their first 3 years is impressive. The youth of the team and the statistical improvements, modest thou they may be, are reasons for optimism for Vikings fans.

[Mothman]

This was in the stat thread, but deserves mentioning here: We finished 7th in the league in pass defense. That is an amazing turnaround and a tremendous reason to think we are better than 2013.

I agree but they also finished 25th in run defense, 28th in passing and 27th on offense, all steps backward from last year. Which trends, if any, will carry over to next year?

[J. Kapp 11]

I'm sorry, folks, but the W/L record tells it all, which is why it's the determining factor in the standings, and we've seen too many losing and/or mediocre years from the Vikings lately.

But if the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer to the question has to be, "Yes, we're better off."

We won 5 games in 2013. We won 7 games this year. It's pretty simple, by that standard.

If you're not going to let people use the "if this would have happened, we'd have won more games" excuse -- and you are correct in that position, IMO -- then wouldn't you agree it's ALSO not fair to say "we didn't beat anybody with a winning record" or other qualifiers?

The question isn't whether we're enough better off than last year. It's whether we're better off, period. If the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer is clear. We are.

[dead_poet]

I don't like the question. We're asked to evaluate one season of a new staff and players and compare that to the "efforts" of a previous staff's culmination of their "body of work." I was expecting a lateral move at best and wanted to see growth and potential. I saw both in many areas. Year two is going to be more telling. I'd rather answer the question of "Are the Vikings better off in year 2 of Zimmer's regime than they were in Year 1?" and then perhaps "Are the Vikings better off at the end of 2015 than they were at the end of 2013?" It's not impossible to see marked growth from previous regimes to new ones in one season, but I don't know of any that had to do it without their best player, significant injuries and a rookie QB for most of the season.

Overall I'm pleased with the direction. If Spielman fails to address the offensive line I'll be disappointed, though. I did see a stat recently that I think Kalil only gave up one sack in the last five games.

[Mothman]

But if the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer to the question has to be, "Yes, we're better off."

We won 5 games in 2013. We won 7 games this year. It's pretty simple, by that standard.

If you're not going to let people use the "if this would have happened, we'd have won more games" excuse -- and you are correct in that position, IMO -- then wouldn't you agree it's ALSO not fair to say "we didn't beat anybody with a winning record" or other qualifiers?

The question isn't whether we're enough better off than last year. It's whether we're better off, period. If the won-loss record tells it all, then the answer is clear. We are.

Objectively, based on that standard alone, I agree but I think his point about the record was aimed more at the ""if this would have happened, we'd have won more games" comments than the question of whether the Vikings are better off as a whole at the end of this season than they were at the end of last season. As I suspect you'll agree, that's a more subjective question.

It's pretty obvious that there are good reasons to be optimistic about the team's future and some compelling reasons to have doubts about where they're headed too. My impression is that a lot of people feel good about the team because they have some good young talent, their pass defense made great strides forward this year and they may have finally found their QB. Those are good reasons to be optimistic! The flip side of the coin: they struggled in run defense, along the o-line and to move the ball and score points. Those are pretty good reasons to have doubts.

This is going to be another very important offseason for this team.

[J. Kapp 11]

Objectively, based on that standard alone, I agree but I think his point about the record was aimed more at the ""if this would have happened, we'd have won more games" comments than the question of whether the Vikings are better off as a whole at the end of this season than they were at the end of last season. As I suspect you'll agree, that's a more subjective question.

It's pretty obvious that there are good reasons to be optimistic about the team's future and some compelling reasons to have doubts about where they're headed too. My impression is that a lot of people feel good about the team because they have some good young talent, their pass defense made great strides forward this year and they may have finally found their QB. Those are good reasons to be optimistic! The flip side of the coin: they struggled in run defense, along the o-line and to move the ball and score points. Those are pretty good reasons to have doubts.

This is going to be another very important offseason for this team.

Aren't they all?!!!!!

[Mothman]

Aren't they all?!!!!!

Yes, but I'm still hoping that one of these days we'll get to one where we'll be saying, "Well, they just won the Super Bowl and they're pretty loaded but I supposed they could use a backup safety in the draft."

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't like the question. We're asked to evaluate one season of a new staff and players and compare that to the "efforts" of a previous staff's culmination of their "body of work." I was expecting a lateral move at best and wanted to see growth and potential. I saw both in many areas. Year two is going to be more telling. I'd rather answer the question of "Are the Vikings better off in year 2 of Zimmer's regime than they were in Year 1?" and then perhaps "Are the Vikings better off at the end of 2015 than they were at the end of 2013?" It's not impossible to see marked growth from previous regimes to new ones in one season, but I don't know of any that had to do it without their best player, significant injuries and a rookie QB for most of the season.

Overall I'm pleased with the direction. If Spielman fails to address the offensive line I'll be disappointed, though. I did see a stat recently that I think Kalil only gave up one sack in the last five games.

I agree about the question.

We see the same thing in politics. It's just rhetoric, designed to promote a particular position. And, as we've discussed, it's completely dependent on the position from which you look at it. When someone asks me, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" the answer is a resounding, "Yes?" But I suspect that would have much more to do with my wife earning a huge promotion than the actions of some politician. And I know that many of my friends aren't.

It's just a columnist looking for an interesting angle. And that's not a criticism. It's not easy to come up with profound column ideas 2-3 times per week. In this case, he got us talking about it, so I'd say he succeeded in doing his job.

[The Breeze]

I agree in spirit with what DP has said....next season to this season will be a better indicator.

Having said that, if someone had predicted that this team would do a complete 180 on pass defense, basically lose every significant skill player on offense for the majority of the season, forced to start a rookie qb, with a first time HC and new schemes on both sides of the ball,... yet be competitve enough to be within 3-4 plays of a 10 win season, all while playing at TFC....I would have laughed at them (quietly).

I think Spielman deserves a lot of credit for the people he's brought in here.

He's had some misses\YTBD's in the freak athelete dept. and along the o-line....but this roster is looking good IMO.

The run defense is a legit concern along with o-line. Definitely need another QB is Cassel bails.
I think AD will be back(please).

Zimmer and Turner will be better prepared for division play going forward.

No one knows how it will play out....who could have guessed this years crap?....but i think there are less questions and contract situations going into next year...