PDA

View Full Version : vikings! contenders or pretenders?



vikefan522
04-11-2007, 10:24 PM
we are playing the afc west and the nfc east.


along wit a list of teams who r betta than us on paper.
oakland looks better!

i think we can make the playoffs b/c the nfc is open.

our division is open also.

so-cal vike
04-11-2007, 11:00 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


we are playing the afc west and the nfc east.


along wit a list of teams who r betta than us on paper.
oakland looks better!

i think we can make the playoffs b/c the nfc is open.

our division is open also.



Oakland looks better?





Are you high?


As for your question, the Vikings are always contenders.

MensaTice
04-11-2007, 11:05 PM
At this time there is no argument to make for the Vikes being contenders.
We don't have anyone to throw the ball to the guys who can't catch.
Until something is done about this, this team will continue to be a trainwreck.
Add to that Brad's kick jiggly butt offense and the argument is even harder to make.

vikefan522
04-11-2007, 11:05 PM
oakland upgraded their backfield. jerry porter is bak, the defense is solid.

if they draft
j-rus or get a decent qb, they look better on paper.

Zeus
04-11-2007, 11:08 PM
Dear God, it's only April.
Free agency is 1/2 over, tops and the draft hasn't happened yet.

Get a grip.

=Z=

vikefan522
04-11-2007, 11:14 PM
yea, at the same time, we've picked up garbarge in free agency.

the draft is a toss up b/c it depends on the top 6, there also to many question marks on the players in the draft.

After watching our team struggle all last season we have the right 2 complain about losing.

so-cal vike
04-11-2007, 11:16 PM
"MensaTice" wrote:


At this time there is no argument to make for the Vikes being contenders.
We don't have anyone to throw the ball to the guys who can't catch.
Until something is done about this, this team will continue to be a trainwreck.
Add to that Brad's kick jiggly butt offense and the argument is even harder to make.



Every team, including the Vikings, are contenders this early in the off-season.

so-cal vike
04-11-2007, 11:21 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


oakland upgraded their backfield. jerry porter is bak, the defense is solid.

if they draft
j-rus or get a decent qb, they look better on paper.


Porter...Porter...you've got to be kidding?
Oh yeah, their defense is solid...barely.
They have no o-line, no running back, their recievers are highly questionable, no QB, and most importantly, they have an owner who will stop at nothing to drive that pathetic team into the ground.

Better on paper....I think not.

vikefan522
04-11-2007, 11:25 PM
they have dominic rhodes and a modern playbook(now)
their wide recceivers r way betta than ours.
their pass defense is better.
their qb situation is just as uncertain as ours.

Ltrey33
04-11-2007, 11:29 PM
"so-cal" wrote:


"vikefan522" wrote:


oakland upgraded their backfield. jerry porter is bak, the defense is solid.

if they draft
j-rus or get a decent qb, they look better on paper.


Porter...Porter...you've got to be kidding?
Oh yeah, their defense is solid...barely.
They have no o-line, no running back, their recievers are highly questionable, no QB, and most importantly, they have an owner who will stop at nothing to drive that pathetic team into the ground.

Better on paper....I think not.


Oakland's O-line was a joke last year, especially in pass protection. Did you see them against the Chargers? Aaron Brooks had Shawne Merriman in the backfield as soon as the ball was snapped. They were awful.

Obviously it's hard to say whether the Vikes will be contenders or not, but I have a hard time thinking they will be.

IMO, Tarvaris is still a ways away from leading this team to the playoffs. He just hasn't had enough experience. If they draft Brady Quinn, he won't be any different. The front office will probably draft a wide receiver, but very few WR's come in and light up the scoreboard in their first year. A talented rookie wideout will help this team, but he won't be enough to elevate our offense quite yet.

I foresee another year of running the ball and low scoring games for our offense.

so-cal vike
04-11-2007, 11:32 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


they have dominic rhodes and a modern playbook(now)
their wide recceivers r way betta than ours.
their pass defense is better.
their qb situation is just as uncertain as ours.



We have C. Taylor and have always had a modern playbook.
Recievers???
On both ends.
Our Run D is better.
At least we have an O-line.


Again, better on paper...I think not.

vikefan522
04-11-2007, 11:35 PM
lets c what the chargers defense does 2 us!

the important things we even this drought and win a superbowl! (now)

vikefan522
04-11-2007, 11:37 PM
"so-cal" wrote:


"vikefan522" wrote:


they have dominic rhodes and a modern playbook(now)
their wide recceivers r way betta than ours.
their pass defense is better.
their qb situation is just as uncertain as ours.



We have C. Taylor and have always had a modern playbook.
Recievers???
On both ends.
Our Run D is better.
At least we have an O-line.


Again, better on paper...I think not.


our run defense looks good b/c teams could pass all day!

so-cal vike
04-11-2007, 11:40 PM
"vikefan522]<br" wrote:



Not a darn thing!
;)

[quote author=vikefan522]the important things we even this drought and win a superbowl! (now)


Now that's something we can agree on.
Skol Vikings!

simonsparre
04-12-2007, 01:52 AM
Either we will make a turnaround like the Saints or we will get a top 5 draft pick in 2008! Our offense suck and our denfense can't defend the pass. If we wanna compete for a shot at the SB this year we need an impact rookie, who can start from day one (Like Colston and Bush.)

ultravikingfan
04-12-2007, 04:05 AM
LMFAO!!!

(to everything he posted)

BritishVike
04-12-2007, 06:19 AM
There is no chance we are contenders this year.
I would like to see us show promise that we are getting better, that we have the determination, that we have some talent.
Personally, i think this team lacks a star, a real driving force, yeah we've got some great players i. e Winfield, Birk, Hutchinson, Williams and Williams etc etc.
But none of them shout out to me like they give this team an edge.
Personally i want childress to draft somebody who is gonna be a franchise player, someone who shows leadership as well as talent, preferably a wide reciever who we can call the go-to-guy.
Ill be happy as long as the Vikes show the remotest ability to put points on the board!At the mo, we're truly dekcuf as i think most will agree.

BBQ Platypus
04-12-2007, 06:43 PM
"BritishVike" wrote:


There is no chance we are contenders this year.
I would like to see us show promise that we are getting better, that we have the determination, that we have some talent.
Personally, i think this team lacks a star, a real driving force, yeah we've got some great players i. e Winfield, Birk, Hutchinson, Williams and Williams etc etc.
But none of them shout out to me like they give this team an edge.
Personally i want childress to draft somebody who is gonna be a franchise player, someone who shows leadership as well as talent, preferably a wide reciever who we can call the go-to-guy.
Ill be happy as long as the Vikes show the remotest ability to put points on the board!At the mo, we're truly dekcuf as i think most will agree.


That's...depressingly accurate. :'(

Billy Boy
04-12-2007, 07:21 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


yea, at the same time, we've picked up garbarge in free agency.


That has got to be one of the more uneducated and unsubstantiated comments I have heard.
Are you familiar with the term role players at all?
Or team?


"vikefan522" wrote:


the draft is a toss up b/c it depends on the top 6, there also to many question marks on the players in the draft.


That has got to be THE most vanilla comment I have heard.

singersp
04-12-2007, 08:08 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


"BritishVike" wrote:


There is no chance we are contenders this year.
I would like to see us show promise that we are getting better, that we have the determination, that we have some talent.
Personally, i think this team lacks a star, a real driving force, yeah we've got some great players i. e Winfield, Birk, Hutchinson, Williams and Williams etc etc.
But none of them shout out to me like they give this team an edge.
Personally i want childress to draft somebody who is gonna be a franchise player, someone who shows leadership as well as talent, preferably a wide reciever who we can call the go-to-guy.
Ill be happy as long as the Vikes show the remotest ability to put points on the board!At the mo, we're truly dekcuf as i think most will agree.


That's...depressingly accurate. :'(


Nice to see you back BBQ!

cajunvike
04-12-2007, 08:12 PM
Oh, oh, oh, yes...we're the great contenders...ooh, ooh, ooh...contending when no one's around....

i_bleed_purple
04-12-2007, 08:18 PM
we're definetially not contendrs thats for sure.
but then again, they're not pretending to be terrible either, they actually are, so your question has no answer!

Nebvikefan
04-12-2007, 08:46 PM
"BritishVike" wrote:


There is no chance we are contenders this year.
I would like to see us show promise that we are getting better, that we have the determination, that we have some talent.
Personally, i think this team lacks a star, a real driving force, yeah we've got some great players i. e Winfield, Birk, Hutchinson, Williams and Williams etc etc.
But none of them shout out to me like they give this team an edge.
Personally i want childress to draft somebody who is gonna be a franchise player, someone who shows leadership as well as talent, preferably a wide reciever who we can call the go-to-guy.
Ill be happy as long as the Vikes show the remotest ability to put points on the board!At the mo, we're truly dekcuf as i think most will agree.


Thats why we need to draft AP.
I got my fingers and toes crossed for AP baby!!!!

VikesFan4Life
04-12-2007, 08:49 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


Dear God, it's only April.
Free agency is 1/2 over, tops and the draft hasn't happened yet.

Get a grip.

=Z=


Exactly.
Yeah, sure it's kinda fun to look over the schedule and make ridiculous predictions on how many games will be won/lost.

How many people thought New Orleans would win 10 games last year?
Not many, I'm sure.

Who thought San Francisco would finish with their record, with the horrid season they had a year before?

The Jets had a greatly improved season over the previous year.

Those are just a few examples.

I will refrain from making predictions on win/loss records at this juncture in the offseason.
I'd rather focus on the draft for now, and see if the team improves a little (on paper, of course!).
Overall, I thought the Vikings had a pretty good draft last year; just about everyone contributed in a positive way.

Billy Boy
04-12-2007, 09:04 PM
"VikesFan4Life" wrote:


I will refrain from making predictions on win/loss records at this juncture in the offseason.
I'd rather focus on the draft for now, and see if the team improves a little (on paper, of course!).
Overall, I thought the Vikings had a pretty good draft last year; just about everyone contributed in a positive way.


I won't!
10-6 baby!
Out in the conference championships.

Nebvikefan
04-12-2007, 09:10 PM
I am with you billy boy but i am going 11-5!!!!
Lose by a field goal to the Saints in the conference chamiponships.
Ap and Sidney Rice share the team MVP honors!!!

HoosierVike
04-12-2007, 09:11 PM
there is NOOOO way we are pretenders.....seriously



...because in order to be pretenders don't people have to think we were contenders at one point? and that is definately not the case for this vikings squad for the upcoming season..

vikefan522
04-13-2007, 01:58 PM
"Billy" wrote:


"vikefan522" wrote:


yea, at the same time, we've picked up garbarge in free agency.


That has got to be one of the more uneducated and unsubstantiated comments I have heard.
Are you familiar with the term role players at all?
Or team?


"vikefan522" wrote:


the draft is a toss up b/c it depends on the top 6, there also to many question marks on the players in the draft.


That has got to be THE most vanilla comment I have heard.





our offense last year was filled with "role players" and it sucked big time!

lets look at our offense couple years agowith some star power(randy moss, culpepper, J

wiggs,Nate b) our offense was feared around the league! why was that o yea, star power

that in which we dont have. ALL playoffs teams last year had a dangerous weapon on

offense/defense! so tell me who was the biggest free agent signing? BOBBY WADE!

WAIT MIKE DOSS......NOW WE HAVE A GROUP OF SAFETIES(thats not a need). i though so!

The draft isnt really deep(for us) we cant take 4 wide receivers in a row. unless we make

a trade to number 3 or something we might suffer another long year of a terrible offense.

We'll be like the bears a fews years ago, solid running game and great defense no


passing attack!

ultravikingfan
04-13-2007, 02:29 PM
"HoosierVike" wrote:


there is NOOOO way we are pretenders.....seriously



...because in order to be pretenders don't people have to think we were contenders at one point? and that is definately not the case for this vikings squad for the upcoming season..


LMAO!
Great post!

baumy300
04-13-2007, 02:36 PM
"so-cal" wrote:


Are you high?

Are you offering?
;)

NodakPaul
04-13-2007, 02:53 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


our offense last year was filled with "role players" and it sucked big time!

lets look at our offense couple years ago with some star power(randy moss, culpepper, J wiggs,Nate b) our offense was feared around the league! why was that o yea, star power that in which we dont have.

And yet we still couldn't finish better than 8-8 or 9-7.
Even with all that star power...

"vikefan522" wrote:

ALL playoffs teams last year had a dangerous weapon on
offense/defense!

Who was the Bear's dangerous weapon on offense?
I'll admit that Grossman was dangerous, but not to opposing teams...

"vikefan522" wrote:

so tell me who was the biggest free agent signing? BOBBY WADE!
WAIT MIKE DOSS......NOW WE HAVE A GROUP OF SAFETIES(thats not a need). i though so!

Who would you have rather signed.
This FA was filled with mediorce players.
There were simply no "stars" out there to get.
The few players that could be considered talented weer asking much more than they were worth, and will be out of the league in a couple years anyway.

"vikefan522" wrote:

The draft isnt really deep(for us) we cant take 4 wide receivers in a row. unless we make a trade to number 3 or something we might suffer another long year of a terrible offense.

Holy pooh.
Are you kidding.
This is a HUGE draft for WR (which is apparently the position you are in love with).
There is a lot of talent across the board in this draft.

"vikefan522" wrote:

We'll be like the bears a fews years ago, solid running game and great defense no passing attack!


Hell, that is basically the Bears from last year.
And they went to the super bowl.
I'll take that.

You are very hung up on offense.
Yes, we need to improve it.
It was boring, anemic, and lost us several games last year.
But while offense sells tickets, defense wins games.
There is more to the game than just long bombs and highlight reels...

vikefan522
04-13-2007, 04:31 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"vikefan522" wrote:


our offense last year was filled with "role players" and it sucked big time!

lets look at our offense couple years ago with some star power(randy moss, culpepper, J wiggs,Nate b) our offense was feared around the league! why was that o yea, star power that in which we dont have.

And yet we still couldn't finish better than 8-8 or 9-7.
Even with all that star power...

"vikefan522" wrote:

ALL playoffs teams last year had a dangerous weapon on
offense/defense!

Who was the Bear's dangerous weapon on offense?
I'll admit that Grossman was dangerous, but not to opposing teams...

"vikefan522" wrote:

so tell me who was the biggest free agent signing? BOBBY WADE!
WAIT MIKE DOSS......NOW WE HAVE A GROUP OF SAFETIES(thats not a need). i though so!

Who would you have rather signed.
This FA was filled with mediorce players.
There were simply no "stars" out there to get.
The few players that could be considered talented weer asking much more than they were worth, and will be out of the league in a couple years anyway.

"vikefan522" wrote:

The draft isnt really deep(for us) we cant take 4 wide receivers in a row. unless we make a trade to number 3 or something we might suffer another long year of a terrible offense.

Holy pooh.
Are you kidding.
This is a HUGE draft for WR (which is apparently the position you are in love with).
There is a lot of talent across the board in this draft.

"vikefan522" wrote:

We'll be like the bears a fews years ago, solid running game and great defense no passing attack!


Hell, that is basically the Bears from last year.
And they went to the super bowl.
I'll take that.

You are very hung up on offense.
Yes, we need to improve it.
It was boring, anemic, and lost us several games last year.
But while offense sells tickets, defense wins games.
There is more to the game than just long bombs and highlight reels...


back than we didnt have a good defense! now we do have a good defense that can exactly stop someone.

the bears dangerous weapon was thomas jones and berrian was a deep threat and scored more points than our number one wide receiver. des clark was big. dont forget the bear had one of the top scoring offense in the league last year.

i think kevin curtis, daunte stallworth are all better than bobby wade. adaulis thomas would have made a great playmaker on our defense. greenway is still a huge question mark!

all the wide receivers in the draft other than johnson has huge question marks. and i'm not sold on any USC receivers at all. we have no veteran leader on our receiving core.

you think i'm in love with receivers huh? we'll we have a solid running game, decent TE.
good o-line. it doesnt matter how good ya line is if your wide receivers cant get open even with teams stacking the box in one-one coverage you wont score too many points.

btw, the bears have a great pass rush and could stop the pass and create turnovers.
i think grossman numbers was better than 9td's and 15int's. they werent 28th in scoring offense ether.

if you score alot a points and have the 8th ranked defense thats good but if you dont score points and you cant stop the pass you wont win too many games.

btw, you need to score more points than the other team to win.

balanced teams wins superbowls.

Billy Boy
04-13-2007, 04:42 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:




We'll be like the bears a fews years ago, solid running game and great defense no


passing attack!


Meh, where are the Bears now?

slavinator
04-13-2007, 05:04 PM
Call me Crazy, but with all the turmoil in the windy city I still believe that we are CONTENDERS!!
There really isnt a clear cut dominant NFC North team.


The bears have alot of unknowns and their D is aging very quickly.
REcall that after the Vikes near victory at home against the bears the same sort of game plan was employed against them later in the year. Run up the middle, deep seam routes, and some mis-direction to keep them a step slower.


Green Bay is still not going to do anything, and the Lions are, well, the Lions.

ultravikingfan
04-13-2007, 05:36 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:



back than we didnt have a good defense! now we do have a good defense that can exactly stop someone.

So we have a good defense?
You mean the one that was dead last in Pass D?
Last time I checked, you need to be at least balanced in both.
Not #1 in one, and #32 in the other.

"vikefan522" wrote:


the bears dangerous weapon was thomas jones and berrian was a deep threat and scored more points than our number one wide receiver. des clark was big. dont forget the bear had one of the top scoring offense in the league last year.

Did you seem to forget all the Defensive and Special Teams TD's?
Or were you just giving the "dangerous" Offense all of the credit for those points?

"vikefan522" wrote:


all the wide receivers in the draft other than johnson has huge question marks. and i'm not sold on any USC receivers at all. we have no veteran leader on our receiving core.

You jump from all the WR's, to USC, and then we have no leadership?
Please explain what you are trying to explain please.
I am completely lost on that.
^

"vikefan522" wrote:


you think i'm in love with receivers huh? we'll we have a solid running game, decent TE.
good o-line. it doesnt matter how good ya line is if your wide receivers cant get open even with teams stacking the box in one-one coverage you wont score too many points.

Decent TE?
LMAO!
You mean the fat guy who drops passes, likes to leap, and nets around 4 yards?
LOL!


You do have some decent points, but you really need to re-examine some of the things you said.

purplepat
04-15-2007, 09:04 AM
Until proven otherwise, the Vikings are pretenders.
I've seen no real improvement at the WR spot yet, nor TE, nor DE (though James may return from injury OK).
With a very, very tough schedule, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Vikings finished 8-8 this year.

Purplexing
04-15-2007, 09:11 AM
My Magic Eight-Ball says............ " the message is fuzzy; ask me later, after the draft and final pre-season cuts and subsequent signings! "

BritishVike
04-15-2007, 09:28 AM
"Purplexing" wrote:


My Magic Eight-Ball says............ " the message is fuzzy; ask me later, after the draft and final pre-season cuts and subsequent signings! "



Agreed. However, even if we're not contenders, i wanna see some promise from the team that the potential is there.

Purplexing
04-15-2007, 09:40 AM
"BritishVike" wrote:


"Purplexing" wrote:


My Magic Eight-Ball says............ " the message is fuzzy; ask me later, after the draft and final pre-season cuts and subsequent signings! "



Agreed. However, even if we're not contenders, i wanna see some promise from the team that the potential is there.


To be less evasive, I'll say the odds are great that the Vikings will be contenders.

Only a few pieces need to be added; WR1, WR2, DE?, QB? and better quality RB, DT depth.
Then, the MLB and QB positions remain an uncertainty until the team hits the field.
But, odds are good that some or most of the needs will be filled, and most of the transitional players currently on the roster will develop into their new roles as starters.

Purple Floyd
04-15-2007, 02:54 PM
"Purplexing" wrote:


"BritishVike" wrote:


"Purplexing" wrote:


My Magic Eight-Ball says............ " the message is fuzzy; ask me later, after the draft and final pre-season cuts and subsequent signings! "



Agreed. However, even if we're not contenders, i wanna see some promise from the team that the potential is there.


To be less evasive, I'll say the odds are great that the Vikings will be contenders.

Only a few pieces need to be added; WR1, WR2, DE?, QB? and better quality RB, DT depth.
Then, the MLB and QB positions remain an uncertainty until the team hits the field.
But, odds are good that some or most of the needs will be filled, and most of the transitional players currently on the roster will develop into their new roles as starters.



The problem with that statement that I see is that the positions (except DE) you mentioned are positions,especially in this offense, that take a few seasons to understand and execute properly. If that is the case, then the KAO is still a few years and a few losing seasons away from being perfected. With that in mind I expect us to have a similar season to last year and hopefully by week 12 we will see some gains and look strong by the end of the year which would give us hope for reaching the playoffs in the 2009 season.

Questfor31
04-16-2007, 09:52 AM
I think the Vikings are definitely in the mix.
In today's NFL wth so many teams making the worst to first jump, anyone can be a contender in the NAtional Football league.
That's what makes parity so interesting.
The vikings hada strong defense last year, add another year of chester Taylor on the ground and your have the formula for success that the Bears, Ravens, Bucs, all used to take them to Super Bowls.

vikefan522
04-16-2007, 01:51 PM
with good play calling and coaching yes!
but bad coaching(players not gettn better) and terrible play calling. Last in the nfc north.
Building a team is working wit who young talent you have like bak in the day.

Look at the redskins they sign everyone but they cant gel because they arent coached properly!

NodakPaul
04-16-2007, 01:58 PM
"vikefan522" wrote:


with good play calling and coaching yes!
but bad coaching(players not gettn better) and terrible play calling. Last in the nfc north.
Building a team is working wit who young talent you have like bak in the day.

Look at the redskins they sign everyone but they cant gel because they arent coached properly!


I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

My guess is you are trying to say that Childress is a bad coach, and coaches from the past (Green, Tice ???) are good coaches...
I maintain that Childress can not be judged as either a good or bad coach yet.

I am waiting for Marrdo to post his "I like it when someone blames Childress quote"... ;D