Vikings Message Board.Com

VikingLord wrote:What's the goal for each team each year? It's to win the Superbowl, isn't it?

Once a team is out of contention for that goal, what good does it do them to expend prime resources to win meaningless games? It might be good for individuals like the coach and maybe the GM, but what good does that do to move the team in the direction they want to go?

You could say "it builds momentum", but does it? In the modern NFL? In the NFL where a team can be vastly different from one season to the next, and where most teams are lucky if they can hold a core group of a few key players together over a few years? The team the Vikings just played won the Superbowl and then proceeded to lose 9 key players in a single offseason. This modern version of the NFL isn't the one I grew up watching. It's the NFL of the here-and-now, where to have a realistic shot at that ring a team needs to fill a few key spots and get competent play from the rest. It's the NFL where a Green Bay Packers team can lose a single key player and go from a Superbowl competitor to a team as bad as the Vikings.

So no, I don't buy into the romantic idea that this is a league of one-for-all, all-for-one anymore. I buy into the reality that each season is about one thing and that is winning the Superbowl, and if a team can no longer do that in *this* particular season, then it needs to play to put itself into the best possible position to do it in the *next* season.

And as far as "tanking" games goes, I'm not saying a team should play to lose per se. What I am saying is that a coach and GM should get their younger players on the field. Get them experience. Let them make mistakes. Heck, who knows, some of those younger guys might actually make some plays (witness, for example, the play of Audie Cole at MLB, Rhodes at CB, and Patterson at WR). Heck, they might even be better than the guys they replaced and the team could in theory win a few, but at least those wins would have the *context* of the future. They would show what the team, and fans, can look forward to in the following season. Those types of wins would possess some substance of meaning. I'm also saying reduce the workloads of your core players who are key to your chances next season. Showcase the skills of the players who are likely to leave via FA or who you can maximize their future value to your team via tenders or trades. Basically, let the games that can no longer help you get to the Superbowl at least have some value to the team for the following season.

Anyway, to each his own, but I'm not getting younger and this team is in dire, dire need of quality QB play if they are likely to enter any of the upcoming seasons as Superbowl contenders. Nobody can argue the point that drafting high is no guaranteed solution to the problem of finding a quality QB, but it does provide one key thing and that is choice. You draft at #12 and you need a QB, you might be driven to gamble. You draft at #1, and you get the pick of the litter. It does make a difference.

There is nothing depressing about this. It's cold, hard reality, and there is no point in railing against it. In fact, I'd argue that the truly depressing thing here is staying stuck on a romantic notion of an NFL long gone, which in turn leads those in charge to act against their own interests.

At least Frazier is finally putting his younger guys on the field, and they are showing some of what they can do. At least we have that going for us...

mondry wrote:To describe my point further, let's say instead of those names just above, what if we won the game because players like MBT, Hodges, Griffen, and Berger got the start and LOOKED GOOD while doing it. THAT is the type of WIN that you could feel good about imo, and one that could perhaps "build momentum." Though I'm with Vikinglord in that I don't think anything we do this season as far as the W column goes matters at all next year. The reason it would in this situation is because YOUNG PLAYERS THAT WILL BE AROUND FOR NEXT YEAR, played a role in winning the game.

Mothman wrote: Young players who will be around next year, eh? Hmmm, you know Christian Ponder is 25 and under contract for 2014... that sounds like an argument to get him back in the starting lineup!

mondry wrote:It would be, if he had been on the bench this whole year and things played out this way with say Cassel at QB. Unfortunately he's the QB of a team that's gone 1-7-1 with him (in my book) and proven without a shadow of a doubt that he isn't the answer, YMMV but it's time to move on.

UKno1VIKING wrote:How about Big Ben and a college QB?
He's said he wants out of Pitt and he could do a job for a year while taking our new prodigy under his wing

UKno1VIKING wrote:How about Big Ben and a college QB?
He's said he wants out of Pitt and he could do a job for a year while taking our new prodigy under his wing

fiestavike wrote:....Just as long as they don't reach for a QB I'll be happy.

mrc44 wrote:Wouldnt mind grabbing Mallet, and then a qb in the draftin one of the early rounds. If Teddy is there when we pick, I think we need to take the chance on him. I really think the kid will be a good QB. He can't be worse than what we have...

The only reason I think Mallet would be a good pick up is because he has been watching Brady everyday for the last few years, he had to learn a few things and when he was coming out he would have been a higher pick if it wasnt for the OTF issues. The learning experience has to count as a plus when looking for your next QB.

mansquatch wrote:My view on this has evolved. NFL Players will never tank a game. In most cases they have only a short span of years to make CEO level incomes. That income entirely depends on their giving 110% in everything they do. Quite simply, the incentive to play their rears off is too high.

I do feel that given the QB driven nature of today's NFL the incentive is to get the highest pick possible if you need that guy, but there is no guarrantee pick #1 will be that guy. Regardless, given the above incentive to players I do not see how you can get an entire roster to give up.

Look at Curtis Painter. He played on the tank season that netted the Colts the Luck pick. He isn't with the Colts anymore. Was he rewarded for his efforts in any way? Not in the least, he is lucky to have a job and he is from Indiana!

I admittedly hope they lose right now since the season for them is done (no playoffs). I want to see guys develop and I want to see as high a pick as possible for more talent, but I understand the above dynamics of the league. It is what it is.

fiestavike wrote:I'm sure its a terribly unpopular option, but I would love to just roll with cassel and focus on acquiring the most dominant offensive line in the NFL next year. That group is not very good. If we could add two premier guards, via FA or the draft, add a LB, a S, DT and DE, I think we have enough talent to be a very good team.

Just as long as they don't reach for a QB I'll be happy.

Mothman wrote:It would certainly be difficult to retain respect for a head coach that was more concerned about draft position and tryouts for untested players than winning. Pro players put their bodies and livelihoods on the line every week. Why would they want to do that for a coach and team that didn't give a crap about winning the games they're playing and was instead, more concerned about the unproven young player they might be able to draft next spring? How do you think a player like Kevin Williams would feel about that?

Mothman wrote: There are a lot of ways to let "meaningless" games have meaning for a team but I'd argue the best way is to treat them like they mean something because for any player worth having on the team, they should and probably do mean something. Approaching it any other way sends the wrong message.

That's just my take and maybe it's romantic to think the integrity of the game still means something but I don't think so.

VikingLord wrote:If these guys want to win, then they understand that sometimes you have to take a step backwards to take two forward, and if I were on the team I would have more questions about a coach who guns his star RB for 35 carries to win a meaningless game than I would about a coach who starts throttling his key talent back a bit in that situation with an eye towards next year. What shows greater concern for those veteran players is more a matter of perspective, don't you think, especially in light of the recent injury to AD.

I think showing an appreciation of context is the mark of a coach and GM worth something. I think making those tough calls in tough situations is exactly the kind of medicine this organization needs. Integrity is doing what needs to be done even if it's difficult. I'd say shifting approach to maximize future value in this situation is the definition of integrity.

And like I said - that isn't equivalent to intentionally losing.

Anyway, to each his own, but I'm not getting younger and this team is in dire, dire need of quality QB play if they are likely to enter any of the upcoming seasons as Superbowl contenders. Nobody can argue the point that drafting high is no guaranteed solution to the problem of finding a quality QB, but it does provide one key thing and that is choice. You draft at #12 and you need a QB, you might be driven to gamble. You draft at #1, and you get the pick of the litter. It does make a difference.

The short of it is, the Vikings could very well play themselves right out of a spot where they might be able to land a guy like Derek Carr or even Manziel. They end up with, say, the 8th pick, and I could see Bridgewater, Carr, and Manziel all gone by the time that pick rolls around. Spellman, Frazier, and Wilf better have a heart-to-heart about the future here, because if this team isn't picking closer to 5th than 10th, that could easily make the difference between having at least one viable option at QB in the upcoming draft and being consigned to another season of Christian Ponder at QB while Spellman heaves prayers in FA or via trade.