Annual Minnesota Viking Thread

[Snake]

I think the Vikings made a statement about where they're headed when they signed a running back (granted, AP's the best) to a $100M contract in the age of the passing offense. At least with the new CBA they won't have to handcuff themselves with a ton of guaranteed money to a rookie QB contract, and could possibly explore options beyond Ponder if he doesn't work out.

QBs just can't "manage" the game any more. They have to control the offense and win the game. Sure, McNabb hasn't turned the ball over; but isn't going 3-and-out on 90% of your drives late in ballgames just as lousy as throwing a few INTs?

Leslie Frazier probably looks bewildered because there's more than just QB talent problems on this team.

[Hayduke]

I heard the Minnesota Vikings invented a new way to count.

0 and 1, 0 and 2, 0 and 3, 0 and 4...

[Big A HG]

I think the Vikings made a statement about where they're headed when they signed a running back (granted, AP's the best) to a $100M contract in the age of the passing offense. At least with the new CBA they won't have to handcuff themselves with a ton of guaranteed money to a rookie QB contract, and could possibly explore options beyond Ponder if he doesn't work out.

QBs just can't "manage" the game any more. They have to control the offense and win the game. Sure, McNabb hasn't turned the ball over; but isn't going 3-and-out on 90% of your drives late in ballgames just as lousy as throwing a few INTs?

Leslie Frazier probably looks bewildered because there's more than just QB talent problems on this team.

If you want to win Super Bowls, then yes, you have to have a QB who is more than just a game manager. But, the Vikes don't have one, so someone who CAN manage the game is your next best option. McNabb has been sufficient in that manner considering the short amount of time he had to learn the offense. He can't go win you a game by himself, but if you mix him in with a $100M running back, and a decent defense, the Vikes should be better than 0-4.

That's why I think it comes down to the coaching. Let's face it, the Vikes don't have a winning roster right now, so to expect McNabb to come in and make the team a title contender was just not very thoughtful. However, the Vikes should have at least a win right now.

[WYOBISONMAN]

I still say.....let Ponder take over and see what happens.....

[Snake]

If you want to win Super Bowls, then yes, you have to have a QB who is more than just a game manager. But, the Vikes don't have one, so someone who CAN manage the game is your next best option. McNabb has been sufficient in that manner considering the short amount of time he had to learn the offense. He can't go win you a game by himself, but if you mix him in with a $100M running back, and a decent defense, the Vikes should be better than 0-4.

That's why I think it comes down to the coaching. Let's face it, the Vikes don't have a winning roster right now, so to expect McNabb to come in and make the team a title contender was just not very thoughtful. However, the Vikes should have at least a win right now.

That's why I think there's more wrong with this team than just the QB.

I want my team to win a SB, darn it! That's why I think it's important to see what Ponder can offer for the immediate future. That $100M running back won't be in the prime of his career for much longer. Why fiddle-fart around with an aging QB that hasn't proven he can play worth a darn in the last 2 seasons?

[Fetch]

Your a head at halftime in two games - you run the ball in the second half - Not the Vikings

[Big A HG]

Your a head at halftime in two games - you run the ball in the second half - Not the Vikings

Not to make you Vikings fans feel any worse, but actually, it's been three games they've been ahead at halftime.

[Shawn-O]

I still say.....let Ponder take over and see what happens.....

I agree if it works out great, if not they are in the hunt for Andrew Luck.

[jimdahl]

As I was putting one of my pools together this week and saw the Vikings again FAVORED by 1-3, I found myself pondering the lines for the season. By my best recollection, every one so far has been within a field goal or so (favored in 4, underdog in 1?). Even the 0-3 Vikes going into 3-0 Detroit was a 1-2 point line (game settled in OT by a FG).

I don't know what my point is other than that the oddsmakers have seen some threat there each week, I really think the Vikes are a dangerous team. I think I'll (again) pick Minnesota for this week, so we might as well pencil in 0-5 already, but it will certainly be interesting to see what happens when that 0-5 team goes into Chicago, hosts Green Bay, and goes to Carolina with nothing to lose.

At some point the goal has to switch from maximizing the season record to building for the future, which probably means getting Ponder tested/ready.

[jimdahl]

Ok, I've believed for a few weeks that though not a winning team, the Vikings were a dangerous team. However, I'm again pretty surprised to see the odds for this week -- Chicago is favored by only 1.5-3 (depending on your source). Again, the people putting their money on the line see some threat in the Vikes.

[Jheria]

Ok, I've believed for a few weeks that though not a winning team, the Vikings were a dangerous team. However, I'm again pretty surprised to see the odds for this week -- Chicago is favored by only 1.5-3 (depending on your source). Again, the people putting their money on the line see some threat in the Vikes.

Especially when you get 3 for playing at home. Someone thinks the Vikes can pull the upset.

[Big A HG]

As an outsider looking in, I think Leslie Frazier is a big-time failure in the making. Looking at him on the sidelines, he looks absolutely clueless. I listen to all the press conferences for Coach McCarthy, among other coaches who have achieved something, then you listen to a Leslie Frazier interview, and it's like, you're the coach, have a backbone and stand-up for something.

Childress, whether he was right or wrong, at least believed in what he was doing and had some emotion about it. Same with Denny Green. You have to be firm and decisive, and Frazier is not that. I'm not saying he doesn't know the x's and o's of football, because he obviously does, but some guys just aren't meant to be head coaches.

Yes, I know that every head coach has a different style and personality...the Tony Dungy's on one end, and the Bill Parcells' on the other...but, any successful head coach has good leadership abilities and make their style work. Frazier just seems like he's always waiting for someone to come up to him and tell him what to do next.

[Oxbow6]

A loss today to the Vikings would have made the Packer's 6-1 start going into the bye week a loooooong 2 weeks until the Charger's game. Give Ponder credit, he played better than I anticipated although our own Joey could throw for 3 bills vs. this year's Packer's D.

As a Packer fan, McCarthy is always the opposing team's best weapon when the Packer's get the lead...especially late in the game. Got the best QB in the NFL and he consistantly gets way too conservative IMO in his play calling when GB gets a lead in the 2nd half and 4th quarter.