Vikings Message Board.Com

It would have been best if we lost out LAST YEAR. Duh!

When you get done building that time machine, give Zygi Wilf a call.

(The top quarterback of next year's class is not quite Luck this time around. Actually, Barkley is a lot like Ponder, with maybe less footspeed. It's got to be NICE to play for USC, that draft payout is almost guaranteed.)

Honestly, this kind of sentiment makes me angry. Not only for its bald faced denial of the reality of the competitive spirit in professional athletes (heck, in ANYONE who has ever played ANYTHING), but also for the absurd assumptions that must be fulfilled in order for the hoped for outcome to arise from such a set of choices.

In two words... get real.

In any professional sport (well... not so much baseball), it is better to bottom out than to hover around the middle of the pack. That's why this season, if we don't sneak into the playoffs, will be in a way MORE damaging than last season. How does the 16th overall pick and an 8-8 record help us long-term? Answer: IT DOESN'T.

Throwing games is never an admirable thing to do, nor am I implying it should ever be done. But ask any MLB, NFL, or NBA GM and they will tell you they'd rather bottom out and finish last or second to last in the whole league than miss the playoffs by a few games.

For those of you who follow basketball, Oklahoma City of the NBA is the best example. Durant, Westbrook, Harden. All top picks. They got them because they sucked for a few years in a row. Look at the Colts and Redskins. The Lions. You better believe they're set for the future. The very distant future. As long as you draft smart, it pays to bottom out. Draft position matters. From a franchise standpoint, I'd rather finish 2-14 than 8-8. But, obviously, the fan in me wants the 8 wins. Easier said than done. Haha.

How does the 16th overall pick and an 8-8 record help us long-term? Answer: IT DOESN'T.

I'd argue this line of thinking applies less to football than any other sport. The Patriots, Giants, Packers, and Steelers imply otherwise. The natural cycles imply a good team will pick to the top third rarely but occasionally, middle third more often, and bottom third most often. The key is QB. Not all are picked top 10 (see Brees, Drew and Rodgers, Aaron). It is more important to have good talent evaluators and gain value from most picks than it is to tank and pick Top 3 for years on end (see Lions, Detroit, under Millen).

calvike: you couldn't have said it any better. i've been a vikings fan as a kid but i'm stuck in the middle of "steeler country." i'll say this, no team evaluates talent and drafts better than they do. they never overpay anyone, and always put a solid team on the field. they are quite possibly the best team, as far as personal from top to bottom in the nfl. what upsets me with the vikings, and i'm sure everyone else too, is that they hit as many homers as they do total busts. ap, moss, even culpepper for a few years, but what about picks like underwood and that bum receiver williamson we took in the top 10? then, we took ponder 12th overall when many had him slated as a late second to 3rd round pick. my question is this, what are we doing? aside from wasting the prime years, in the end, for what will be considered the top 5 running backs of all time. it is a shame when you really think about it. i wish i could be optimistic, but i think we will get slaughtered by the bears and packers (along with the rest of our schedule) because i don't believe we have a legitimate quarterback. and in this day and age, in the nfl, you need a legit qb on a consistent basis.

Demi wrote: Yeah, that NFCCG year really catapulted this team to...the worst two following seasons in franchise history.

And if we won we'd have gone to the Superbowl. What's your point? Winning with a rebuilding team puts confidence in your players/coaches. If you really think losing out in a rebuilding year is a good thing...well first your stupid because that's not fun to watch, and it means our rookies/young players sucked and we're back to square 1 looking for talent again. That's what happened to the Lions.. I mean if going 8-8 is so bad how have the Vikings built their great teams throughout the years? Because that's about our average.

Hell most of a good team's talent comes from round 2 and 3 hits. And the Vikings have been pretty strong on those as of late.

CalVike wrote: I'd argue this line of thinking applies less to football than any other sport. The Patriots, Giants, Packers, and Steelers imply otherwise. The natural cycles imply a good team will pick to the top third rarely but occasionally, middle third more often, and bottom third most often. The key is QB. Not all are picked top 10 (see Brees, Drew and Rodgers, Aaron). It is more important to have good talent evaluators and gain value from most picks than it is to tank and pick Top 3 for years on end (see Lions, Detroit, under Millen).

I would completely agree with your assessment. It really does come down to your team's ability to accurately evaluate talent. Heck, Brady was a 6th rounder. We all know that. BUT I would say you have far more assurance when you pick early on than when you take that route. Teams like Cleveland and Cincinnati prove that it doesn't matter if you draft high every year. But high draft picks in the hands of smart front offices are far more potent than low picks in those same hands.

admvp wrote:In any professional sport (well... not so much baseball), it is better to bottom out than to hover around the middle of the pack. That's why this season, if we don't sneak into the playoffs, will be in a way MORE damaging than last season. How does the 16th overall pick and an 8-8 record help us long-term? Answer: IT DOESN'T.

So Harrison Smith (who was picked at 29 IIRC) hasn't helped the team? He won't help us long term? (I'll admit the latter question remains to be answered, but I'd think we'd all agree the answer to question #1 is he has helped the team.)

admvp wrote:How does the 16th overall pick and an 8-8 record help us long-term? Answer: IT DOESN'T.

Uh.. Percy Harvin... Randy Moss... Kevin Williams... Seems like you can get pretty good players with middle-of-the-pack record/drafting...

PurpleMustReign wrote:
Uh.. Percy Harvin... Randy Moss... Kevin Williams... Seems like you can get pretty good players with middle-of-the-pack record/drafting...

Even better examples...

This is where I like to remind people that Joe Montana was picked in the third round and Tom Brady was picked in the sixth round. Win every chance you have.

If we didn't waste 4 years on Jackson, and while Favre was here, try developing a WR as our future backup QB, this team never would have needed Ponder. The day Favre left there should have been a franchise QB ready to go.

Also if Spielman had not been so quick to cut Mckinnie, and worked on his weight issue, or even traded him. Instead of wasting a top 3 pick on a LT, we could have made a move for Luck or RG3, or try filling any of the other 11 holes on this team.

joe h wrote:If we didn't waste 4 years on Jackson, and while Favre was here, try developing a WR as our future backup QB, this team never would have needed Ponder. The day Favre left there should have been a franchise QB ready to go.

Also if Spielman had not been so quick to cut Mckinnie, and worked on his weight issue, or even traded him. Instead of wasting a top 3 pick on a LT, we could have made a move for Luck or RG3, or try filling any of the other 11 holes on this team.

I agree with everything except your take on McKinnie. I think that was the right move. He is a chronic underperformer and his recent history with the Ravens is confirming it...

CalVike wrote: That makes sense, but I would argue the team lost to just about everybody last year, blew lead after lead even against supposedly weaker teams at the time, and looks better overall both offensively and defensively this year. Yes their schedule looks formidable going forward but the win over SF suggests they might beat GB or Chi at home in particular. I don't see the analogy to Kill. The Gophers schedule is a complete joke by choice, the Vikings is what it is. I do think the six wins is twice as good as the three last year, too much nuancing for my taste to argue otherwise.

Well said. Weak schedule or not, the Vikes were one of those weak teams on everybody else's schedule last season so if they can now defeat supposed patsies instead of being one or losing to them, that seems like a step forward.

I see no good reason to be dismissive about the team already doubling their win total from last year and the comparison to Kill's Gophers is just silly. In the NFL, it's tough to get wins. Even the bad teams step up and beat a good one once in a while. Elite teams earn wins against "cupcakes" too. Does it make them any less elite?

The Vikes are definitely not elite but they beat a clear playoff contender (SF) and swept the Lions, a flawed team but not necessarily a weak one. heck, Detroit would have a winning record if not for the two losses the Vikes have handed them. Arizona had a winning record when the Vikes beat them too.

As a fairly new member, (1 year), I must have missed checking the box that Vikings Forum members are required to post a minimum 75 % negativity, even during winning seasons. I guess 6/4 isn't winning. However, everything is life is unknown except one, timing.

...wisdom