How confident are you in the Vikings for 2014?

[PurpleMustReign]

Yes, and I don't think it was fair, so I asked that GBFarve be decent to his Viking brethren. Just to be clear, I see prudence and caution as virtues. You are very level headed and measured in your takes and for some reason it seems to frustrate some of the posters that like to be a bit "looser" with their interpretations. I suspect they are younger and more disposed to speculate and also, unfortunately, to make ad hominem attacks.

I Agree. I don't know where VMB member "thatguy" is, but he is/was one of the most optimistic Viking Fans I have ever known, and people (including myself) would get really upset with him at times, specifically when the Vikings were struggling.
It is odd to me that someone would go after Jim as hard as what just happened, but I agree with Texas Vike that for whatever reason, it upsets people more than some of the "troll" type posters.

[soflavike]

I am confident that the Vikings will be better than last year.

I am hopeful they can contend for a playoff spot.

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't know... I made a post earlier in this thread saying how I wished I was feeling the confidence GBFavreFan is feeling about the Vikings and I expressed how fired up I am for this season and I still got blasted, lectured and accused of seeing football as soulless.

No worries, Jim. You make solid posts and have for years ... everybody knows that. Well, almost everybody.

Here's the thing, GBFavreFan. You are the OP. You started a discussion on a discussion board. That sort of implies a 2-way conversation. You shared your opinion about the Vikings for 2014. Thanks for that. Then you asked US how confident WE are about the Vikings. Since you asked, it seems reasonable to expect you step back and let others share their opinions. It also seems reasonable for you to understand that not everybody's opinion will match yours. Agree, disagree ... whatever. But how about keeping it a little less personal?

Whadya say? Sound like a plan?

[S197]

I would say I'm fairly confident in the team with the big X factor being health. We could have a guy go down in the receiving corp and probably on the D-line and be okay, but there are some other areas where the drop off looks huge. If either (or heaven forbid both) tackles go down, I think it's going to look ugly. Same goes with the secondary and with Rudolph. Assuming the team can stay healthier than last year, it could be a good season.

Some of the promising things I took away from the preseason is the offense was able to move the football via ground and air and this was without Peterson. Defensively, it was nice to see the red zone defense shore up some. I think the combination of the tough schedule and the youth of the team will likely mean a poor start but I'm hoping to see progress as the year goes on. It will be interesting, for example, to see how Barr progresses from week 1 through 16.

[Raptorman]

My confidence in this team does not come from a 4-0 preseason record. It comes from the fact that in those 4 preseason games the 1st team defense played 5 quarters of football against mostly 1st team offense's from other teams. In those 5 quarters they gave up 17 points. Which amounts to 13.6 points over 4 quarters of football. That is a far cry from the 30 ppg given up last year. Even if they give up 17 ppg it is a huge leap. The offense has the same basic players. If they can maintain their ability to score the roughly 25 ppg as they did last year, and the defense holds the other teams to 21 ppg or less it will be a good year.

[Purpnation]

Excellent list Kapp! I think you summed up the preseason very well, and I think you summarized why many of us feel optimistic. It's not about the record, it's about the product we saw on the field.

Preseason doesn't matter, because it has so very little scheming, and game planning, it is solely about individual player evaluation. You seem unaware if that, otherwise I agree with alot of what you just said.

Oops! Meant to quote GBFavrefan bruh, my bad.

[Purpnation]

One thing people tend to forget is that 8 wins won the NFC North last year. And just like last year the NFC North was expected to put forth 3 strong teams and it simply didn't happen. Of course Rodgers missed a lot of the season without a feasible backup plan, but there's nothing to say they would've won the games lost without him as they were against some tough teams. I'm sure some of you will get all in a tizzy about that last statement and I'm not trying to debate anyone on that, as my point is even if the Vikings "only" went 9-7 that doesn't mean they miss the playoffs. Otherwise I think you're estimates are still too conservative. Don't forget our offense ran that well in the offseason WITHOUT Adrian Peterson.

Lol you really think Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have had the Packers better then 8 wins last year? Lol comon man, I know you stated you weren't going to debate this, but you cant say somethin ridiculous and devoid of common sense and not expect to be called on it.[/quote]

That's a simplistic conclusion to say what they would've done with Rodgers. The issues with GB were more than just QB. And they also played some tough teams during that stretch, and they hardly looked dominant when he was there. The closest way to know how the Packers would've done last year will be how they do in 2014, now that the QB position has been stabilized. Otherwise the Packers are fueled by an incredible amount of media hype which has a lot of influence, but the actual results end up being immediate playoff eliminations, drafts filled with players that do nothing, and a weaker record every single year.

I wouldn't even have bothered replying to this but I didn't appreciate your "devoid of common sense" line.[/quote]


The Packers were 5-2 prior to the injury, it goes without saying that the all time leader in Passer rating in NFL history would have won them a handful more games. They went 2-2-1 with MATT FLYNN, so I think that tells you all you need to know.

As to your comment on the Packers management, you are aware the Packers stomp the #### out of your boy Rick and ours Vikes on a consistent basis right? All this talk about declining Franchises but until the Vikes win the division, it is the same as a Bucs fans talking crap about the Saints.

You act as if the Packers 5 straight playoff appearances, 3 straight division title, and one SB win, in the last 5 years is somehow unprefferable to the crap the Spielman has put out on display here. Lets actually go beat them once, and then we can talk about who is on the downfall, and who isn't.

[Raptorman]

As to your comment on the Packers management, you are aware the Packers stomp the #### out of your boy Rick and ours Vikes on a consistent basis right? All this talk about declining Franchises but until the Vikes win the division, it is the same as a Bucs fans talking crap about the Saints.

You act as if the Packers 5 straight playoff appearances, 3 straight division title, and one SB win, in the last 5 years is somehow unprefferable to the crap the Spielman has put out on display here. Lets actually go beat them once, and then we can talk about who is on the downfall, and who isn't.

You may want to check on you facts again about them stomping Rick. Take a look at a couple of their last few drafts back to 2009. A lot of their picks did not pan out.

As to the 5 straight playoff appearances and such. That is because of Rodgers and Rodgers alone...when he doesn't play they are a .500 team.

[Purpnation]

You may want to check on you facts again about them stomping Rick. Take a look at a couple of their last few drafts back to 2009. A lot of their picks did not pan out.

As to the 5 straight playoff appearances and such. That is because of Rodgers and Rodgers alone...when he doesn't play they are a .500 team.

Whatever you think about Ted Thompsons draft, they have still resulted in more success then our entire history combined, a SuperBowl Victory.

The Packers are the 6th youngest team in the league, with 5 straight postseason appearances, 3 division titles, and a SB Championship, you can all rationalize to yourselves all you want, I would trade pretty much our entire history for the Packers last 5 years, you would have to be a delusional homer not to.

As to Rodgers being the reason for there success, how do you think we would fare if we lost AP for part of the season? We are barely even a 500. Team WITH AP, let alone losing him for half the season and still making the playoffs like the fudge did with Rodgers.

[Mothman]

Thankfully, the time for all these predictions and declarations is almost over and we're going to get meaningful football games and some real answers a week from today. Hopefully, the Vikes will go into St. Louis, put an even bigger whuppin' on them than they did last time, and give the Pats plenty to worry about when they prepare to come to Minnesota in week 2.

I'm quoting my own post here just to make a point:

It seems my comment above really rubbed more than one person the wrong way so I want to clarify that it was not meant as an admonition or a suggestion that people shouldn't be making predictions and declarations about the Vikings. This board is for expressing opinions and I encourage everyone to express theirs (including lurkers out there who don't post often!). All I was trying to say is that after the long offseason, it will be nice to get to the real games and see what actually happens. In other words, I did not literally mean the time for predictions and declarations is over, as if to say people should no longer make them and I wasn't trying to imply that I don't want to read them either (I like reading them!). I'm genuinely sorry, and admittedly surprised, that some people took the post that way.

[PurpleMustReign]

I'm quoting my own post here just to make a point:

It seems my comment above really rubbed more than one person the wrong way so I want to clarify that it was not meant as an admonition or a suggestion that people shouldn't be making predictions and declarations about the Vikings. This board is for expressing opinions and I encourage everyone to express theirs (including lurkers out there who don't post often!). All I was trying to say is that after the long offseason, it will be nice to get to the real games and see what actually happens. In other words, I did not literally mean the time for predictions and declarations is over, as if to say people should no longer make them and I wasn't trying to imply that I don't want to read them either (I like reading them!). I'm genuinely sorry, and admittedly surprised, that some people took the post that way.

You don't have to apologize, Jim. If people can't understand your meaning it is their own problem, not yours; especially with a statement like the one you quoted. I get sick of babying adults around in life.


EDIT: Who did you offend? I only count one person who was upset, and that poster had a problem with just about everyone who posted in the thread, not just you. I guarantee I could create a thread that says "Good Morning Viking Fans!!!" and put a picture of their helmet in there, and someone would get upset because they don't like the helmet, and then make up some long reply with a lot of big words about how they don't like the shade of purple on the helmet, and therefore don't appreciate the post. Its pathetic.

[Mothman]

You don't have to apologize, Jim. If people can't understand your meaning it is their own problem, not yours; especially with a statement like the one you quoted. I get sick of babying adults around in life.

EDIT: Who did you offend? I only count one person who was upset, and that poster had a problem with just about everyone who posted in the thread, not just you.

I received a PM from someone who was clearly very upset by the comment and I decided that if two people were bothered, maybe others were as well, hence the post above.

I guarantee I could create a thread that says "Good Morning Viking Fans!!!" and put a picture of their helmet in there, and someone would get upset because they don't like the helmet, and then make up some long reply with a lot of big words about how they don't like the shade of purple on the helmet, and therefore don't appreciate the post. Its pathetic.

Well, if one thing has become clear here over the years, it's that it doesn't take much to stir up debate or controversy.

[frosted]

Whatever you think about Ted Thompsons draft, they have still resulted in more success then our entire history combined, a SuperBowl Victory.

The Packers are the 6th youngest team in the league, with 5 straight postseason appearances, 3 division titles, and a SB Championship, you can all rationalize to yourselves all you want, I would trade pretty much our entire history for the Packers last 5 years, you would have to be a delusional homer not to.

As to Rodgers being the reason for there success, how do you think we would fare if we lost AP for part of the season? We are barely even a 500. Team WITH AP, let alone losing him for half the season and still making the playoffs like the fudge did with Rodgers.

Spoken like a true Packer backer!

JK...maybe.

Let's all stop jumping down each other's throats for minuscule things. Football starts this week fellas (and ladies). It's better than Christmas!

[J. Kapp 11]

The Packers are the 6th youngest team in the league, with 5 straight postseason appearances, 3 division titles, and a SB Championship, you can all rationalize to yourselves all you want, I would trade pretty much our entire history for the Packers last 5 years, you would have to be a delusional homer not to.

Well, then call me a delusional homer.

Their franchise actually has FOUR Super Bowl wins, and I STILL wouldn't trade. I'll take the Bud Grant years over the Pukers' history all day long.

[Mothman]

Well, then call me a delusional homer.

Their franchise actually has FOUR Super Bowl wins, and I STILL wouldn't trade. I'll take the Bud Grant years over the Pukers' history all day long.

Amen!

Admittedly, it would be nice to have a Super Bowl win on the Vikings "resumé" but hopefully that's coming soon. The Packers can keep their history.