Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple bruise wrote:I can't get over this rhetoric about "tanking games". Of course the fewer wins the better position in the draft and I do get that BUT.... This is a business where coaches, players and the GM are all struggling to keep their jobs. They need as many wins as possible to do so. They need to put the best "product" on the field week in and week out regardless of their record.
Another important aspect to this are the season ticket holders and fans that attend and watch the games each week. Would anyone like to go to a game, spend money on expensive tickets knowing that "their team" is going to tank the game. How about the sponsers? Do they want to pour their dollars into a team that is intentionally trying to lose game...hell no.
Gambling is a multi-billion dollar business in pro sports and like it or not teams cannot intentionally lose games. It is unethical and in some circumstance illegal. Staying on that thought how do you intentionally lose a game? Do you have your kicker botch a field goal, your running back fumble, tell you players to "miss" tackles, have your QB throw intentional interceptions. If that were to happen the team would surely get fined, lose draft picks and yes even maybe lose their franchise.
As it turns out this team is doing all of those things anyway but are not doing them on purpose. All of the close losses that have happened to them are not a result of tanking games. In fact, many knowledgeable people have commented on how this team HAS NOT QUIT and plays hard every week. Kudos to them!
Some players have performance clauses based on number of games played, number of receptions, rushing yards, tackles, sacks etc. if they are healthy enough to play does anyone suppose that they would not want to? Would they want to give another player the chance to take their job away from them, hell no. Again I would remind people that this is not only a game but a business.

mmvikes wrote:
You sit your first and second string RBs, top 2 tight ends, and two starting corners. Guess it didnt work.

mmvikes wrote: Saint said,
"I think your taking the term "tanking" too literal. I would be surprised if there were a fan out there that wants/expects our team to just quit and actually try to lose games. It's more from a fan's perspective, either being ok with a loss because of the draft position, or in some cases hoping for a loss for draft position."

Purple bruise wrote: Are you trying to say that the Vikings were trying to tank the Eagles game by "sitting" AD, Toby, Carlson, Cook and Rhodes And fully intended this in a failed attempt to lose You can't be that nieve can you

Purple Reign wrote: I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic with that statement. Lighten up a bit.

Purple bruise wrote: Who are you to tell me to lighten up? No one was talking to you were they Is that what printing in red means sarcasm?

mosscarter wrote:many quarterbacks have been deemed backups and have made a comeback. kurt warner is a prime example. those receivers cassell had with kansas city were horrendous. look at cassell and jennings stats alone when he has started. two healthy tight ends next year and maybe add a lineman and who knows? if your calling cassell a backup then what in god's name is ponder?

Purple bruise wrote:
Who are you to tell me to lighten up? No one was talking to you were they Is that what printing in red means sarcasm?

mosscarter wrote:oh, and steve young was a back up too and he turned out to be one of the best qbs ever. i'm not saying cassell is on that level but aside from the carolina start he's looked very impressive.

Purple bruise wrote: Who is laughing now

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Hahaha. I am laughing - still. I had plenty of laughs during the game.

Also, I am laughing at the fact that you bothered to take the time to quote my first page response, but not my 24th page response following the game. Kudos man - great job!

mondry wrote: He's just a guy trying to help you out, try not to have an Aneurysm over it jeeze.