A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/
This, exactly.Webbfann wrote:Don't you think the QB they draft-and you are making an assumption that he WILL draft one at all-will be done after conferring with the new head coach? Why will the result be entirely on Spielman's head? He can't coach the QB. He can't determine what the picks performance will be. And we don't even know that he will draft a QB this year, we just know he will probably be looking to pick one up one way or the other.
Spielman apologist.psjordan wrote: This, exactly.
Internet LOVES black and white and folks LOVE to post in black and white and/or extrapolate other's posts into black and white, but at the end of the day it's a grey, grey world.
Our next QB will be picked with inputs from many places. Spielman is on the hook for sure, but taking the position that HE and HE ALONE will pick the next QB just for the sake of blame is, well, way too black and white.
Now, just to hold true to form, someone please respond to this post calling me a Spielman apologist. Make my day.
The fact that there are shades of gray (or layers of complexity) to some aspects of the sitution should not be construed to mean that areas of black and white don't exist, or that this somehow supports what you've been saying all along.Mothman wrote: Spielman apologist.
Seriously, good post. I wish more people acknowledged those shades of gray and that it was easier to discuss football online in those terms because the eagerness to blame and those "black and white" viewpoints wear me down.
Not everything is gray, there are areas of great clarity in our situation.That's true. For example: Leslie Frazier was fired, Christian Ponder was benched and Jared Allen's contract is up. All of that is perfectly clear.Webbfann wrote:The fact that there are shades of gray (or layers of complexity) to some aspects of the sitution should not be construed to mean that areas of black and white don't exist, or that this somehow supports what you've been saying all along.
Mothman wrote: That's true. For example: Leslie Frazier was fired, Christian Ponder was benched and Jared Allen's contract is up. All of that is perfectly clear.
What I have been "saying all along" (years before you joined this board, by the way) is that most of the issues we discuss around here are gray, not black and white. That's why I showed appreciation for Paul's comments. I wasn't trying to make it about my point of view regarding particular issues this year at all.
indeed....Thanks for illustrating the point psjordan made so succinctly.Webbfann wrote:Frazier=poor coach. Black and white.
How? Just because Frazier did a small number of things adequately doesn't change his overall performance. I can get 10 or even 20 questions right on a test with 100 questions. To you that is shades of gray (hey, I got 10 or 20 RIGHT so its not ALL bad!!!), but it in fact its about the lowest F possible. The 10 don't carry equal weight with the other 90, but in your gray view they do.Mothman wrote: Thanks for illustrating the point psjordan made so succinctly.
indeedPlease don't presume to express my views for me, especially if you're going to express them so inaccurately.Webbfann wrote:How? Just because Frazier did a small number of things adequately doesn't change his overall performance. I can get 10 or even 20 questions right on a test with 100 questions. To you that is shades of gray (hey, I got 10 or 20 RIGHT so its not ALL bad!!!), but it in fact its about the lowest F possible. The 10 don't carry equal weight with the other 90, but in your gray view they do.
This is a key distinction. There is no debate possible when one opponent has a black and white perspective...it's called an argument and it's the main reason politics and religion are taboos here.Mothman wrote: Please don't presume to express my views for me, especially if you're going to express them so inaccurately.
You appear determined to incite a debate here but I'm not interested, especially when, by your own admission, your view on the subject is "black and white". What would be the point?
Nevertheless, it's the kind of rational, intelligent perspective many of us sincerely appreciate so thank you for posting it.The Breeze wrote:This is a key distinction. There is no debate possible when one opponent has a black and white perspective...it's called an argument and it's the main reason politics and religion are taboos here.
Many fans are so emotionally hinged to their expectations that it drives their opionions to a point past the line of any rational conversation about anything regarding the team. It's essentially no different than the political/relgious eddy, where the goal is about being "right" as opposed to actually expanding perspective and proficiently communicating...ie: listening.
Udder madness I say.
Preaching to the choir.....I know~
well if the whole Freeman thing wasn't sooo weird and we were leveled with by the team, there would be no need for such speculation. the whole thing reeks of desperation from top to bottom. It inspires no confidence to say the least.Eli wrote:How many different spins on the Freeman debacle can we possibly find (or make up)?
Spielman wanted Freeman. Frazier wanted Freeman. Frazier didn't want Freeman. Spielman forced Frazier to play Freeman. Frazier was getting back at Spielman by throwing Freeman in too soon. Frazier knew that the only way to save his job was to hope Freeman became his savior. Blah blah blah.
As the world turns... the soap opera in Minnesota just keeps on churning out episode after episode.
Isn't the "team not leveling with us" speculation itself, that fuels the rest of the speculation?dkoby wrote: well if the whole Freeman thing wasn't sooo weird and we were leveled with by the team, there would be no need for such speculation.