Vikings Message Board.Com

2016 will forever be remembered for collapsing. It will be an excuse-filled year. The injuries never helped, but we still had chances to finish the season on better terms.

Hopefully the Wilfs take a hard look at things this offseason. Rick Spielman cannot fail this offseason. Zimmer needs to take a hard look at himself and make the proper amendments to his coaching duties/abilities.

As a Vikings fan, I always find myself saying "there's always next year." I am still waiting for the day where I can finally say: "It's this year."

Mothman wrote:Good thoughts, friends. I plan to post in more detail later but honestly, right now it's hard for me not focus on this:

The Packers are going to the playoffs for the 8th straight year, and the 13th time since 2001. The Vikings have been to the postseason 5 times in that same 16 years, with one playoff win.

The Vikings need to establish a higher standard.

Or just hit on back to back arguably top 3 all time QBs and have no QB issues for a Quarter of a century. I am sure Jordy's Packer-sense is tingling and he will wax on and on about how the Packers front office just reads the tea leaves right and is 1000x smarter than everyone else who has dedicated their life to football and that Farve and Rogers were 100% calculated sure things by the Packer Management but realistically the Packers just lucked out on Farve followed by Rodgers. How do you mimic or follow over 20 years of durable Hall of Fame caliber QB play?

Take solace in the fact that realistically Rodgers only has 4 more years before he becomes an utterly immobile more and more fragile pocket passer.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:2016 will forever be remembered for collapsing. It will be an excuse-filled year. The injuries never helped, but we still had chances to finish the season on better terms.

Hopefully the Wilfs take a hard look at things this offseason. Rick Spielman cannot fail this offseason. Zimmer needs to take a hard look at himself and make the proper amendments to his coaching duties/abilities.

As a Vikings fan, I always find myself saying "there's always next year." I am still waiting for the day where I can finally say: "It's this year."

I agree with all the above.

I'd post further thoughts but I need a little time to put them in order.

Bottom line, I'm not happy with the 2016 season on multiple levels.

IrishViking wrote:Or just hit on back to back arguably top 3 all time QBs and have no QB issues for a Quarter of a century. I am sure Jordy's Packer-sense is tingling and he will wax on and on about how the Packers front office just reads the tea leaves right and is 1000x smarter than everyone else who has dedicated their life to football and that Farve and Rogers were 100% calculated sure things by the Packer Management but realistically the Packers just lucked out on Farve followed by Rodgers. How do you mimic or follow over 20 years of durable Hall of Fame caliber QB play?

I don't think it was just luck and while that kind of QB play has been a stabilizing force and a key for Green Bay, it's far from the only reason they've had so much success in that time period. QBs don't get to or win Super Bowls on their own.

I think where they've been luckiest is in the health of those 2 QBs but they traded for Favre and drafted and developed Rodgers to succeed him, deliberate moves that paid off big, in no small part because they built teams around those players good enough to win it all and stay in the playoff mix year after year.

Take solace in the fact that realistically Rodgers only has 4 more years before he becomes an utterly immobile more and more fragile pocket passer.

That will be cold comfort at best if the Vikes don't get their act together. I mentioned Green Bay because they're an example, in our division, of an NFL organization that actually has their act together. They've set the kind of higher standard I'm talking about.

It's time the Vikings started doing likewise.

Injuries finally caught up to the Vikings in the second half and compromised the team chemistry which led to somewhat of a bitter end to the season.

Now we have to look forward to winning the off-season.

Mothman wrote: I don't think it was just luck and while that kind of QB play has been a stabilizing force and a key for Green Bay, it's far from the only reason they've had so much success in that time period. QBs don't get to or win Super Bowls on their own.

I think where they've been luckiest is in the health of those 2 QBs but they traded for Favre and drafted and developed Rodgers to succeed him, deliberate moves that paid off big, in no small part because they built teams around those players good enough to win it all and stay in the playoff mix year after year.
That will be cold comfort at best if the Vikes don't get their act together. I mentioned Green Bay because they're an example, in our division, of an NFL organization that actually has their act together. They've set the kind of higher standard I'm talking about.

It's time the Vikings started doing likewise.

I think you are undervaluing stability at the QB position a little there. QB has been the STRONGEST position in Green Bay for 21 years and will probably stretch to 25 before Rodgers ends. That beats out even the Montana-Young run by the 49ers with 18. It is literally the longest any team in NFL history hasn't had a question mark at the QB position.

Yes obviously the Packers did some stuff right, it wasn't just dumb luck they got Rodgers. My point is, there is some element of luck with development, surrounding talent, injuries, etc. But they have been able to focus on the rest of their team because they haven't HAD to spend a 1st round pick on QB (apart from Rodgers) in 21 years. Imagine if in 2003 Farve had been seriously injured meaning they draft a QB in 2004 to help and then in 2005 they don't draft a QB in the 1st because they JUST did it last year and they focus on a need... Boom, they don't have Aaron Rodgers. That's not suppose to read like some sort of Vikings smut fantasy, its just to illustrate how much stuff had to go right outside of GBs control to have this work out. Not even to mention That if any team beside the 49ers, Green Bay, or the Redskins had felt they needed a QB that year GB might have been out of luck. You needed an entire 2004 year of other QBs escaping the serious injury bug and finally GB ending up a slot higher than the Red skins on the draft board.

Again they did their homework, more power to them. But they are the beneficiaries of an extreme run of luck. If and only If the next one is a HoFer will I begin to consider that the Packers management just know football better than everyone else. Two is lucky, three is a trend. This run at QB has allowed them the extreme luxury and advantage of being able to focus entirely on the other positions and I struggle to see how the Packers could maintain this level of play with not only sub par/ or Spotty QB play but essentially "wasting" a high draft pick on a QB every 3rd year.

IrishViking wrote:I think you are undervaluing the QB position a little there.

How am I undervaluing it? I said it's been a key for them by which I meant that it's been of crucial importance.

Yes obviously the Packers did some stuff right, it wasn't just dumb luck they got Rodgers. My point is, there is some element of luck with development, surrounding talent, injuries, etc. But they have been able to focus on the rest of their team because they haven't HAD to spend a 1st round pick on QB (apart from Rodgers) in 21 years.

Yes, and as I acknowledged, they've been fortunate that those 2 QBs have stayed healthy for so much of that time.

Imagine if in 2003 Farve had been seriously injured meaning they draft a QB in 2004 to help and then in 2005 they don't draft a QB in the 1st because they JUST did it last year and they focus on a need... Boom, they don't have Aaron Rodgers. That's not suppose to read like some sort of Vikings smut fantasy, its just to illustrate how much stuff had to go right outside of GBs control to have this work out. Not even to mention That if any team beside the 49ers, Green Bay, or the Redskins had felt they needed a QB that year GB might have been out of luck. You needed an entire 2004 year of other QBs escaping the serious injury bug and finally GB ending up a slot higher than the Red skins on the draft board.

Again they did their homework, more power to them. But they are the beneficiaries of an extreme run of luck.

f and only If the next one is a HoFer will I begin to consider that the Packers management just know football better than everyone else. Two is lucky, three is a trend. This run at QB has allowed them the extreme luxury and advantage of being able to focus entirely on the other positions and I struggle to see how the Packers could maintain this level of play with not only sub par/ or Spotty QB play but essentially "wasting" a high draft pick on a QB every 3rd year.

If you want rationalize their success away like that, we can agree to disagree but I don't believe for a second that any team has a run of success like they've had just because they're lucky. They're "lucky" like the Pats and Steelers have been lucky over the years: because they know what they're doing. That's the point and I don't want to get hung up on GB because they were just an example.

Mothman wrote:snip

Sorry if I was being unclear. My point is it feels sorta like you are saying "The vikings need to sort their crap out and emulate the Packers by finding an answer at QB for 20 plus years and using that ensuing stability to focus on every position but QB for 20 drafts" Because THAT is EXACTLY how they have had they success they have had. I wasn't trying to say that they shouldn't be proud of which QBs they got because it was pure luck (which, imo it nearly was but that is just my opinion) I am saying the stability they have had is a literally unprecedented historic run of luck and shouldn't be the basis for emulation because its not something you can plan or build around in the NFL.


As for the Pats and Steelers its the same boat for them. All we need to do is find a HoF caliber QB who has the longevity to allow us to not spend a penny or a draft pick on a QB besides out of pure curiosity or desire for a decade or so. It all starts at QB stability for all of those teams because its the biggest resource sink in the entire Sport.

IrishViking wrote:
Or just hit on back to back arguably top 3 all time QBs and have no QB issues for a Quarter of a century. I am sure Jordy's Packer-sense is tingling and he will wax on and on about how the Packers front office just reads the tea leaves right and is 1000x smarter than everyone else who has dedicated their life to football and that Farve and Rogers were 100% calculated sure things by the Packer Management but realistically the Packers just lucked out on Farve followed by Rodgers. How do you mimic or follow over 20 years of durable Hall of Fame caliber QB play?

Take solace in the fact that realistically Rodgers only has 4 more years before he becomes an utterly immobile more and more fragile pocket passer.

That last part is funny and I disagree, just wanted to say that.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the aquisition of Favre as luck, Rodgers? Maybe, but not Favre. Wolf wanted him in the draft with the Jets, AND the Packers brass prior to his hire wanted him, Wolf made a gutsy trade to aquire him from ATL and that was that.

IrishViking wrote: Sorry if I was being unclear. My point is it feels sorta like you are saying "The vikings need to sort their crap out and emulate the Packers by finding an answer at the QB for 20 plus years and using that ensuing stability to focus on every position but QB for 20 drafts" Because THAT is EXACTLY how they have had they success they have had.

But that is not, in fact, what I'm saying.

I wasn't trying to say that they shouldn't be proud of which QBs they got because it was pure luck (which, imo it nearly was but that is just my opinion) I am saying they stability they have had is a literally unprecedented historic run of luck and shouldn't be the basis for emulation because its not something you can plan or build around in the NFL.

I didn't say the Vikings should emulate anybody. I said they need to get their act together and set a higher standard. If they take a different path than Green Bay, that's fine.

As for the Pats and Steelers its the same boat for them. All we need to do is find a HoF caliber QB who has the longevity to allow us to not spend a penny or a draft pick on a QB besides out of pure curiosity or desire for a decade or so. It all starts at QB stability for all of those teams because its the biggest resource sink in the entire Sport.

I don't think you need to field a HoF-caliber QB to provide that kind of stability but you do need a good one. Again, it's no accident that certain franchises have managed to find such players. That's not simply a matter of luck, even if there's some good fortune involved.

I'm tired of seeing excuses for this franchise's continued mediocrity.

Mothman wrote:I'm tired of seeing excuses for this franchise's continued mediocrity.

Sorry, I sorta took a higher standard and then an example of another team as an indication you think they should be emulated. I am not trying to make an excuse I am just not understand the frustration. Everyone and their brothers wife's dog know what you need to win in the league, decent QB play and the stability it brings and winning several other in game match ups; special teams, trenches, DB vs Receivers, etc. The Vikings are hunting for it, they don't have it not because they are terribly managed and snakebit. But because they made some poor choices at key moments historically and didn't have the luck to overcome it.

They are going for that now but what you do need, is to hit on certain players, namely QBs. and I believe that there is WAY more luck involved in that than anyone will ever admit because if there wasn't The scouts who found Tarkenton, Montana, Manning, Brady, etc. Would have sold their secrets for a kings ransom and teams wouldn't miss on picks ever, only sure things would be chosen and busts would have gone the way of the dodo baring injury. We have been drafting players for roughly 50 years now. If Luck wasn't a huge part of the success rate busts wouldn't exist, period.

I am saying that the Patriots, Steelers, and Packers made good sound business risks with their QBs but no, the Packers didn't look into a Crystal ball and go "We will trade for farve and in 11 years draft his GOAT replacement and 3 years later start him" They Picked up a solid player and year after year held their breath on every hit, tackle, drive home, offseason work out, sniffle, cough, hiccup, finger cut, etc. And it worked out for them. And that wise choice AND LUCK gave them the opportunity to make the choices the did and they made solid ones. the acquisition of Farve AND LUCK led to the drafting of Rodgers.

I simply don't get why folks wont admit that a HUGE part of drafting and football in general is just straight luck? How would the league look if Brady had suffered a non contact knee injury in 2004 or Farve and broken his hand on one of the many many MANY sacks or tackles he absorbed in his career? What if Culpepper had popped right back up after that hit and ran to the huddle for his next play? If Vick had LIKED dogs? If Bradford and Lucks injury history was reversed? The NFL is based around a bunch of huge dudes slamming into each other with great force. Its a plethora of little things like trajectory, angels, field firmness, how warmed up you are, bone density, weight, gear, how you hit the ground, etc. that make or break a players career, not his 4.40 speed or how much time the GM spent wondering about his toughness on his big board.

Basically I get what you are saying, and the Vikings management needs to overcome its historical trend of making the WRONG choice at key moments but there is simply a lot of luck involved in getting to those key moments which the Vikings had practically nil of this year.

Yes Jordy, the Packers are a well run organization.

IrishViking wrote: Sorry, I sorta took a higher standard and then an example of another team as an indication you think they should be emulated. I am not trying to make an excuse I am just not understand the frustration. Everyone and their brothers wife's dog know what you need to win in the league, decent QB play and the stability it brings and winning several other in game match ups; special teams, trenches, DB vs Receivers, etc. The Vikings are hunting for it, they don't have it not because they are terribly managed and snakebit. But because they made some poor choices at key moments historically and didn't have the luck to overcome it.

They are going for that now but what you do need, is to hit on certain players, namely QBs. and I believe that there is WAY more luck involved in that than anyone will ever admit because if there wasn't The scouts who found Tarkenton, Montana, Manning, Brady, etc. Would have sold their secrets for a kings ransom and teams wouldn't miss on picks ever, only sure things would be chosen and busts would have gone the way of the dodo baring injury. We have been drafting players for roughly 50 years now. If Luck wasn't a huge part of the success rate busts wouldn't exist, period.

I am saying that the Patriots, Steelers, and Packers made good sound business risks with their QBs but no, the Packers didn't look into a Crystal ball and go "We will trade for farve and in 11 years draft his GOAT replacement and 3 years later start him" They Picked up a solid player and year after year held their breath on every hit, tackle, drive home, offseason work out, sniffle, cough, hiccup, finger cut, etc. And it worked out for them. And that wise choice AND LUCK gave them the opportunity to make the choices the did and they made solid ones. the acquisition of Farve AND LUCK led to the drafting of Rodgers.

I simply don't get why folks wont admit that a HUGE part of drafting and football in general is just straight luck? How would the league look if Brady had suffered a non contact knee injury in 2004 or Farve and broken his hand on one of the many many MANY sacks or tackles he absorbed in his career? What if Culpepper had popped right back up after that hit and ran to the huddle for his next play? If Vick had LIKED dogs? If Bradford and Lucks injury history was reversed? The NFL is based around a bunch of huge dudes slamming into each other with great force. Its a plethora of little things like trajectory, angels, field firmness, how warmed up you are, bone density, weight, gear, how you hit the ground, etc. that make or break a players career, not his 4.40 speed or how much time the GM spent wondering about his toughness on his big board.

Basically I get what you are saying, and the Vikings management needs to overcome its historical trend of making the WRONG choice at key moments but there is simply a lot of luck involved in getting to those key moments which the Vikings had practically nil of this year.

Yes Jordy, the Packers are a well run organization.

I agree completely with your entire post.

Last part is completely unnessecary, at no point did my post indicate that I care in the slightest about your validation, I dont.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I believe Shurmur will be retained, as well as Sparano. Strangely enough, I think both did a good job this season. The O-line actually got better as the season wore down. I suppose there's no fixing Clemmings, but they still managed to move the ball quite well toward the end.

I honestly think this team can contend, and soon. True, we don't have a first-round pick, but essentially we do ... his name is Sam Bradford. We've just GOT to address the O-line. We've got 2nd- and 3rd-round picks, so it's possible to get some talent on the line.

Wish we could have kept up what we started, but that's not the way it happened. I'd like to say I'm used to the disappointment by now, but I don't suppose I'll ever get used to it. Here's hoping Spielman and Company address the teams needs in the offseason.

Very well thought out post!

A big decision needs to be made about Shurmur because the draft will be focused on bringing in players to fit his scheme. I have no faith in RS to find the right players, but I'm not convinced that Shurmur's system is nothing more than a vanilla version of the WCO. I was looking for signs that his offense was developing, I saw a stubbornness of trying to run the ball on first and second downs setting up third and longs, only to have Bradford throw short of the sticks and expect his receivers to run 7 yards to a first down. Some of Shurmur biggest problems were failures on third down, lack of aggressiveness and red zone struggles. The Vikings were predictable and easy to defend. Will it be enough with this coaching staff's offensive schemes to make that next step?

Tony I'm not so sure he has had a stellar season. Some of his decisions are questionable.
The Vikings’ commitment to Clemmings became more and more baffling as the season went on, especially after they signed Rashod Hill off the Jacksonville practice squad and didn’t play him until the final week of the year when Clemmings got hurt. Also, Alex Boone offered to move to tackle and was rejected, which, in hindsight, may have been a better choice than sticking with the status quo.
Then there was the decision to move Clemmings from LT to RT and bench Sirles.

From the bye week this team was a mess in my opinion I think it was a big battle between the coaches which ultimately made Norv decide to retire. I think some other coaches was also ready to leave with Norv. In the end it also made players draw sides....but that's just my opinion.

IrishViking wrote: Sorry, I sorta took a higher standard and then an example of another team as an indication you think they should be emulated. I am not trying to make an excuse I am just not understand the frustration. Everyone and their brothers wife's dog know what you need to win in the league, decent QB play and the stability it brings and winning several other in game match ups; special teams, trenches, DB vs Receivers, etc. The Vikings are hunting for it, they don't have it not because they are terribly managed and snakebit. But because they made some poor choices at key moments historically and didn't have the luck to overcome it.

They are going for that now but what you do need, is to hit on certain players, namely QBs. and I believe that there is WAY more luck involved in that than anyone will ever admit because if there wasn't The scouts who found Tarkenton, Montana, Manning, Brady, etc. Would have sold their secrets for a kings ransom and teams wouldn't miss on picks ever, only sure things would be chosen and busts would have gone the way of the dodo baring injury. We have been drafting players for roughly 50 years now. If Luck wasn't a huge part of the success rate busts wouldn't exist, period.

I am saying that the Patriots, Steelers, and Packers made good sound business risks with their QBs but no, the Packers didn't look into a Crystal ball and go "We will trade for farve and in 11 years draft his GOAT replacement and 3 years later start him" They Picked up a solid player and year after year held their breath on every hit, tackle, drive home, offseason work out, sniffle, cough, hiccup, finger cut, etc. And it worked out for them. And that wise choice AND LUCK gave them the opportunity to make the choices the did and they made solid ones. the acquisition of Farve AND LUCK led to the drafting of Rodgers.

I simply don't get why folks wont admit that a HUGE part of drafting and football in general is just straight luck?

I'm not denying it's a factor but we clearly disagree about the extent to which it's a factor. You are attributing far more to luck than I do or will. It's that simple. Luck plays a role in NFL success but I think there's far more to it than that. As you just wrote, drafting Rodgers was a wise choice. We can agree that luck plays a role but so do those wise choices and when they start accumulating, an organization can create both short and long term success.

In my opinion, the Vikings have been inadequately managed and that's been a huge factor in their inability to get back to the Super Bowl since the '70s, much less build a team capable of getting there more than once in a decade or actually winning it. That's the source of my frustration. There's so much more to building and sustaining a winning team in the NFL than luck. It takes vision. It takes an understanding of not only how to find the necessary talent but how to put it together in a way that works. It takes recognizing the right coach to run the team, being able to find, develop and build around a talented QB, not just luck into him. It requires an understanding of what the team has going for it, what it needs to become more complete and a sound plan to get from A to B. Some teams maximize their assets, others squander them. The Vikes fall into the latter category more often than the former. They make mistakes and then, instead of learning from them, they repeat them or compound them with even bigger mistakes, sabotaging their own chances for success. I've been watching them do it for decades.

Not to jump into anyone's debate, but what the packers have gotten out of the QB position since 1992 in astonishing. Part great talent evaluation, part luck. 23 teams passed on Rodgers in 2005, everyone except the falcons passed on favre when he was drafted. Similar to what the cowboys have done. Every team had a crack at romo since he wasn't even drafted. Prescott picked in the 4th round, 135th overall. Brady has missed 19 total games in his career, 4 by suspension and all the rest in one season due to injury. He's played all 16 games 13 times. 198 picks were made before the patriots took him. Multiple teams have started 3 QBs just this season!

Then you have teams like the raiders, who have had 16 different QBs since 2005, they finally reach the postseason for the first time in over a decade and their 1st and 2nd stringers get hurt two weeks before the playoffs start. Then you have the browns who have also had 16 starters since 05 despite consistently drafting in the top 10. None of their guys have hit. The dolphins have had 12 starters in that time after enjoying almost 20 years of Marino, and they too lose their guy before the playoffs start. Then you look at what happened with teddy. The QB wasn't the problem this year and we probably had an upgraded passer, but he was shaping up to be our first franchise QB since culpepper, and he blows up his knee in practice when not even being hit. That's nothing more than rotten luck and the packers are seemingly never without their guy for an extended period of time.

The high point of my packer jealousy came last night when Rodgers had literally 8.5 seconds to scramble and find a receiver in the end zone for the dagger TD. They now have 9 NFC north titles since the division was created in '02; the Vikings and bears have the other 6 between them. Obviously, player selection, development and coaching hires have a lot to do with that....but it also takes a good deal of luck to produce results like that. We just can't seem to sustain either talent or luck for long enough.