Thread: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

"midgensa" wrote:

Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"

where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!

"Vikes_King" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"

where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!

Hey I got the purple shades too brother ... but I think there is an awful lot of journalism bashing on this site and it just gets under my skin sometimes (I happen to be in the field).
Journalists bashed the Colts when they sucked, they bashed the Bengals when they sucked, etc. and they love them now (well did the Bengals til they started getting arrested and not winning). We have to earn respect and we have not done a great job of it the last few years. I hope this is the beggining of turning them all around.

P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.

"midgensa" wrote:

Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"

This was a perfectly fine thread until you ruined it with clear thinking.

Goddamn it.

=Z=

"midgensa" wrote:

P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.

They didn't love the Vikings in the 98-2000 years.
We were pretty damn good then...

"midgensa" wrote:

"Vikes_King" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"

where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!

Hey I got the purple shades too brother ... but I think there is an awful lot of journalism bashing on this site and it just gets under my skin sometimes (I happen to be in the field).
Journalists bashed the Colts when they sucked, they bashed the Bengals when they sucked, etc. and they love them now (well did the Bengals til they started getting arrested and not winning). We have to earn respect and we have not done a great job of it the last few years. I hope this is the beggining of turning them all around.

P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.

I don't view myself as a journalist basher, although, maybe calling some of them hacks qualifies me.
In fact, I studied journalism in college (it was my major for three years) and have done my share of writing, albeit not professionally as a jounalist.


You actually accentuated my point...hear me out; your post was more thoughtful and insightful than that of the journalist who wrote the article and posted his rankings.
That is, he made his deadline, with material that I, among others disagree with; leading me to conclude that he didn't thoroughly research ALL teams.
You brought forward points that are logical and certainly contribute to those with more objective views than I, as well as those who don't dig deeper than the obvious.
Also, he is from Dallas, so I'm naturally biased against him.

Good counterpoints, thanks.

What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?

"CCthebest" wrote:

What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?

Whoo hoo!
CC's back.
I missed his sunshine-like posts in the morning.

Joking aside, you did point out the key areas that need to improve if we want to finish with a better record this year.
Let's hope that they do.
And for the record, if Childress does not improve this year, then no, I will not make any excuses for him.
I have said all along that I expect improvement each year.

Now if (when) Childress does improve this year, will you be man enough to admit that your Childress-hate was misplaced?

I don't think CC is too far off base with his post.
We really haven't done anything drastic that would justify a much improved 07' season.
I do disagree with the ranking though...with the running game and defense we should be ranked several spots higher.
I think with a full year of the new system in place, and not losing any critical talent, that we should expect to improve some over last year...but I would be very surprised if we improved enough to put us in the playoff contender category.
8-8 seams like a realistic record for this season.
Then maybe 10-6 for 08'?
Finally 12-4 for 09' placing us in the superbowl!
woot woot!

he spent no thought into ranking these.

"CCthebest" wrote:

What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?

Or if we improved on any one of those this year we should be quite a bit better.
BTW the Vikings passing completion percentage was 13th (two behind NWE).

"PAvikesfan" wrote:

he spent no thought into ranking these.

That's the thing.
Thats why these "writers" are bashed.
They are often erroneous or in cases like these don't say anything pertinent anyhow.