Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Breaking it down; why are there leaks in the Longboat?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArcticNorseman


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2220
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the 7 years the Wilfs have done amazing things. First, they addressed facility conditions at Viking HQ, which were getting in bad shape.
With the hiring of Childress and his immense staff, things were allowed to start slowly and evolve, but when things went wrong quick, they had no problem re-assessing the organization and moving in a different direction. Finally, they never took their foot off the gas when it came to getting a new stadium -- and they won that battle -- GREAT move for the VIKES!

Twice (that I can think of) the Vikes went "all in" for a single player to carry them to the SB, and they came close with Favre, not so much with Herschel. In the end though, both experiments failed.

The Wilfs have made strategic, long-range changes and I think great improvements. That said, Spielman is making wise moves right now. We all can argue issues with players we like or don't like . . . but that's not the point of this thread. What are the holes in the Longboat?

Prior to this season, I would've sworn it was the DB coach and maybe ST coordinator. But, the only coach released was Dunbar . . . I wondered how you release the guy who's unit performed unbelievably . . . but this year, with healthy players, the DBs actually look pretty good.

When you look at the current roster, talent upgrades need to be made at some position . . . but how does that relate to chemistry? The two most important units that need chemistry and longevity playing together are the offensive and defensive lines. Unfortunately, I think the O-line could use serious upgrades at LG and RG, which means any new guys would need to assimilate fast and develop chemistry. On D-line, I think a new DT/NT would enhance the play of the unit, but overall, they play well.

As for the LBs, I'm surprised, Brinkley's not playing better, and I'm still not sold on Henderson. Greenway's playing very well as usual. But this unit lacks "the guy" like Winfield, Allen, and now Harrison Smith is becoming. I've argued for years the Vikes need a new version of Joey Browner/Ed Reed/Troy Polamolu back there and I hope we finally got him!

Another stud CB would help, should Cook depart via FA in a year or get hurt again.

On offense, I'd keep the QB, RB and TE units as is.

The WRs need two special players to get massively better. I wish I could count Childs as one of the two, but we can only pray he can rehab well enough to get back into the game and go from there. So, maybe a FA, but preferably a high draft pick and one more in Rds 4 or 5 would be smart moves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
milanb


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 6151
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, this team has been overachieving so far this year, so it's I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about a leaky boat.

I want to see how everyone performs in December, both individually and collectively before jumping to any conclusions.
_________________

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11

But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 15233
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
Trading that third round pick for Randy Moss seems like the defining moment of what the Childress era became. Trading two valuable picks for a backup RB was also another. I think these two moves really showed that Childress was all about winning now and that was the downfall of this team. There just wasnt enough of a concern for the future and when age and salary crept up, what we saw were the disasterous 2010 and 2011 seasons. 2010 was harder to take because that team was suppose to be good, but all the veterans seemed to age together at the perfect time becoming useless. 2011 was really the first year of the rebuild, expectations were low. 2012 was suppose to be the same but its obvious that this team is atleast competitive and has a large amount of youth to lean on going forward.

Things should have been blown up around 2009. Brett Favre should never have happened. Trading for Moss and Gerhart should never have happened. Donovan McNabb should never have happened. Childress was a desperate coach trying to do everything in his power to win now, probably to save his job and image since most of MN hated the guy.


Trading for Moss was not the defining moment. Being stupid enough to get rid of him was the defining moment in my mind. Reports out of San Francisco are that Moss has been a big help to the younger receivers on their team, and has also even helped out the defensive backs by teaching them some of the tricks receivers will use on them. Add in the production he would be giving our offense right now, and the number of tickets he would sell, and it becomes pretty obvious what a disaster it was to get rid of Moss three weeks after acquiring him.

Also, I couldn't disagree more with your take on Favre. It was absolutely the correct thing to do. How can you come to any other conclusion? The Vikings were a team stacked with talent, but with no decent quarterback on the roster. We didn't have a high enough draft pick to get a good one, and who else was available in FA?

Brett Favre was one of the greatest quarterbacks (actually, one of the greatest players) to ever play the game. He had an intimate knowledge of our offense, and also had a chip on his shoulder that drove him to make Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy rue the day they got rid of him. What more can you ask for?

Bringing in Favre didn't cost us any draft picks. With him we swept the Packers, rubbed Ted's nose in it, went on to a 13-3 record, and almost got a Super Bowl out of it.

Since 2010 we have had the displeasure of seeing what we would have been dealing with if we hadn't had Favre in '09.

Finally, I've heard people say that the Vikings "mortgaged their future" on Favre. How can that be when he didn't cost us any draft picks, and we didn't have any other legitimate options at QB in the draft or FA anyway? That's ridiculous.
_________________


Aout wrote:
What is wrong with all these Packer fans insulting and raging all the time?


Last edited by Uncle Buck on Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48288
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 9252
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


Having Favre and using 2 picks on a backup RB were not required to go together. That was just stupid all around....I don't get how those two things go together.

I do agree, it gave false hope that Childress had any idea what he was doing....
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 15233
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


We were the best team in the league that year. I would never trade that just to start rebuilding a year earlier. You can always rebuild, you don't always have that good of a shot to win a Super Bowl.
_________________


Aout wrote:
What is wrong with all these Packer fans insulting and raging all the time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48288
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrplChilPill wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


Having Favre and using 2 picks on a backup RB were not required to go together. That was just stupid all around....I don't get how those two things go together.

I do agree, it gave false hope that Childress had any idea what he was doing....


My point was having that great season (which only happened because of Favre) forced a different draft strategy in 2010. If the Vikings had a top 20 pick that year, as they would have without Favre, they surely wouldnt have traded its 2nd and 3rd rd picks for a backup RB.

I wouldnt argue that having Favre mortgaged the future, I just think it gave the team false hope going forward. Nothing was done in 2010 to address future glaring needs that we saw in 2011 and now (WR, CB, S, CB MLB, OG), as those positions were largely filled by veterans, who probably would have been exposed in 2009 if not for Favre. Basically, if Jackson or Rosenfels started in 2009, I wouldnt have expected more than 8 wins, Childress would have been canned and the new staff would have begun rebuilding as we saw in 2011.

That is kind of what i was getting at, how Favre and the Gerhart pick were somewhat linked together. Superbowl caliber teams can make decisions for the present like trading a 2nd and 3rd rd pick for a contributing player. Rebuilding teams need those 2nd and 3rd rd picks for starters. The Vikings should have been rebuilding in 2010 and not doing so probably cost the team 1 or 2 additional starters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48288
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uncle Buck wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


We were the best team in the league that year. I would never trade that just to start rebuilding a year earlier. You can always rebuild, you don't always have that good of a shot to win a Super Bowl.


The results dont suggest that the Vikings were the best team in the league that year. They didnt even reach the superbowl. To me, that season means very little at this point since the net result was just another disappointing championship game loss and ended up prolonging the inevitable. Heck, a lot of players from that team arent even on the team or even in the NFL.

I wouldnt have minded how that season went down if the Vikings made more of an effort in 2010 to build for the future, but again, false hope about the roster created the delusion that the team had fewer needs than they truly did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 15233
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
PrplChilPill wrote:
vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


Having Favre and using 2 picks on a backup RB were not required to go together. That was just stupid all around....I don't get how those two things go together.

I do agree, it gave false hope that Childress had any idea what he was doing....


My point was having that great season (which only happened because of Favre) forced a different draft strategy in 2010. If the Vikings had a top 20 pick that year, as they would have without Favre, they surely wouldnt have traded its 2nd and 3rd rd picks for a backup RB.

I wouldnt argue that having Favre mortgaged the future, I just think it gave the team false hope going forward. Nothing was done in 2010 to address future glaring needs that we saw in 2011 and now (WR, CB, S, CB MLB, OG), as those positions were largely filled by veterans, who probably would have been exposed in 2009 if not for Favre. Basically, if Jackson or Rosenfels started in 2009, I wouldnt have expected more than 8 wins, Childress would have been canned and the new staff would have begun rebuilding as we saw in 2011.

That is kind of what i was getting at, how Favre and the Gerhart pick were somewhat linked together. Superbowl caliber teams can make decisions for the present like trading a 2nd and 3rd rd pick for a contributing player. Rebuilding teams need those 2nd and 3rd rd picks for starters. The Vikings should have been rebuilding in 2010 and not doing so probably cost the team 1 or 2 additional starters.


There could have been something else at work here as well. At that time, Zygi was still trying to get a stadium deal put together, so he probably thought that a Super Bowl win would go a long way toward getting that done.
_________________


Aout wrote:
What is wrong with all these Packer fans insulting and raging all the time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48288
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, the stadium effort could have been a driving factor. But ironically, the team didnt get the stadium until after a 3 win season Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrplChilPill


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 9252
Location: SLP, MN
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who wins a one game playoff has only a little to do with who is actually the best team during a year....judging "best" by playoffs is really not a good measurement, frankly (especially in sports where they play 80+ games).
_________________
Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 74840
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LostRoadStone wrote:
2. No vocal leadership.

Frazier: "...the way [Antoine Winfield] has rallied the young guys has really helped our secondary to improve. His presence in the meeting room, the locker room, it's a big deal for our football team. The young players gravitate to him. He has so much knowledge in the way he prepares, whether it's film study or taking notes in the classroom. He's a good example for our young players."

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_22100107/vikings-resurgent-antoine-winfield-returns-green-bay
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shorty McFast


Joined: 27 Apr 2011
Posts: 759
Location: At the desk
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uncle Buck wrote:
Being stupid enough to get rid of him was the defining moment in my mind.


I don't think Randy wanted to be in Minnesota. Just my take on the situation. I could be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
milanb


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 6151
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingsrule wrote:
I liked bringing in Favre admittedly, but the downside is it prolonged the inevitable, kept Childress around longer than he should have and gave the team false hope in the 2010 draft when they should have been drafting for the future and not getting rid of valuable picks for an extra RB.

I would trade away the 2009 season and Brett Favre ever wearing a Viking jersey, no mater how fun it was, for Childress to have been fired that year and for the rebuilding to begin with the 2010 draft.


Signing Favre was the football version of selling your soul.

Once they allowed Favre to come into camp with no training camp and OTAs that was it. There was no hope of maintaining any semblance of a culture of accountability. I was amazed that they got that one good year out of him in 2009, but when Favre pulled the same stunt a year later you could just tell it was all going to come crashing down. The only thing that surprised me in 2010 was that it took so long for everyone to admit that Favre was washed up, and that this time his annual retirement antics really hurt the team.

Childress wasn't a bad coach at all from a pure football point of view. It was mostly his abrasive managerial style and his fondness for all the cloak-and-dagger stuff that got him fired, and rightly so.
_________________

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11

But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thestonedkoala


Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 4051
PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing that always struck me as weird; keeping Frazier. I know opinions are split on him but Childress coaching wasn't the problem persay. It was the entire coaching staff. And yet we kept Frazier?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group