Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1234 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 144
  1. #11
    Gift's Avatar
    Gift is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    811

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    I think there are alot of folks who share your concerns, we just have to wait to see if there is a larger plan or just smoke & mirrors. I'm definetly looking forward to finding out.
    http://www.purplepride.org/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=6169&dateline=1318052  159

  2. #12
    Prophet Guest

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    "Prophet" wrote:
    Glad you addressed those issues Del, I can rest easier now. I thought I would have to go through that whole post. Wasn't there a post like this, almost word-for-word the other day?

    Oh well, welcome to the site and nice post. It's nice to see people's opinions rather than a one-liner here and there.
    Prophet that's the only reason I addressed them man, I was worried you would not get your rest.

    Mission Accomplished :grin:
    lmao, thank you, it is greatly appreciated. I do need my sleep, the days of getting a beauty sleep are way behind me.

  3. #13
    Mr. Purple's Avatar
    Mr. Purple is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,005

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    Honestly, why do people cling on to stuff from the past. The Moss trade has no effect on this team in 06.Its like saying well since Denny Green left a couple years ago, we're doomed for the next couple seasons. This Vikings "Team" is better as a whole with all the whiney SuperStar egos gone. I love Pepp, Loved Moss, but thier isnt anything we can do but love the team we got and have faith in CHildress.

    Theres NOTHING greater then a Florida Gator!
    "I promise everyone this. When Childress is let go in two years I can honestly say this.
    "I am not surprised"."-PurplePackerEater

  4. #14
    nfl-forums's Avatar
    nfl-forums is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    51

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    What kind of lame screen name is nfl-forums? What are you...the voice of all the NFL Forums combined?...BTW, welcome to the jungle!
    I actually own another forum site which I won't advertise here, but its the reason for the screen name.

    Thanks for the welcome!

  5. #15
    VikesfaninWis's Avatar
    VikesfaninWis is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,055

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    I agree with Cajun, and Del on this one. I disagree with just about everything you said in your post.

    First off, we did 1 game better without Moss. Enough said.

    Culpepper has turned into a whiner and baby. He asked for his trade or release, and he got it. We did better with BJ, and we will do better without Pepp in the longhaul..

    I will take my chances on the Vikings orginization over your opinion anyday.. I respect your opinion on this, but that is all it is, opinion..

    Have faith, you go into all of this with that mindset, you will be looking for bad things all season long. I have your screen name saved now with this post.. If the Vikings do good next season ( and they will) I don't want to see you jumpin on the bandwagon :razz:

  6. #16
    nfl-forums's Avatar
    nfl-forums is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    51

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    [quote]1. Randy Moss Trade. Not their fault, but ole Red traded Randy because he was dumping the team and wanted to get as much money as possible. It was this ownership group that went ahead and drafted Williamson who, although fast and smooth, has a long way to go to being a good receiver.

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    He has played one year. He is alotted a curve better himself. Yes I agree the Moss trade was due in part to Red. It is widely believed also that Tice is somewhat to blame and even Culpepper two guys you defend later on in this post.


    Sure, Tice and Pepp could have definitely had a part in it. My point is still the same - the Vikings, as an organization, screwed this one up bad. At the time a lot of us were thinking this might be a good thing. Well, hindsight is 20/20, and although I think an argument can still be made for the benefits of the trade, I don't think we can say that we got the better end of the deal.

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    2. Culpepper Trade.
    Their fault, 100%. So in two years, the Vikings have traded away Moss and Culpepper and in return got Harris, Williamson, and a 2nd round draft pick. Doesn't take much to see this as a knuckleheaded move.

    I don't know that you can be acurate in saying it doesn't take much to see this as a knuckleheaded move when we haven't seen the team even practice yet. Also you have no proof it was 100% their fault. You assume it was, if it was in fact him who had the issues and was causing grief then this point is moot.
    Even if Pepp was causing the grief, the organization did not do what was necessary to satisfy him. Case in point: Pepp wanted to meet with Wilf about his contract. Action by Vikes: Wilf doesn't show, has someone else do his dirty work.

    Pepp was arguably the most important player on the team. I don't blame the organization for not giving him money, but franchise players are usually kept 'in the loop' on major issues and have access to management.

    The Timberpups are a good example of this. Whenever they make a move, they at least tell Garnett - he's the franchise, and they make sure he knows that.

    Pepp may have been partially at fault, but the organization didn't really do anything to help the scenario.


    "Del Rio" wrote:
    3. Firing Tice. He needed one more year. He may have not succeeded, but we will never know since he never got the opportunity to put together the team he wanted. The guy was working with one hand tied behind his back, was finally a couple of players away from having the team that he wanted, and a couple of coaches away from being a decent coaching staff.

    First of all, he wasn't fired. His contract was up. He just wasn't rehired. Second of all no he didn't just need one more year. Or another or another or another. In fact he stated he was on a 3-4 year plan...he failed his own declaration. Good move to let him walk at the end of the year.
    If you look at what Tice was looking for when he came in, he wanted a strong defensive team and a good running team. The defense did take a huge step forward under Tice, and we had a good running attack (with the exception of last year). I think given the changes he was making, and the obvious holes that we had which were relatively easy to fix in FA, Tice should have had one more year.

    Its a debatable point, though - just my opinion. :wink:

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    4. Lowballing Burleson. This kid has talent, but instead of using the $30+ million in cap room they had, they low-balled him. He is now visiting Seattle and could be lost to them.

    I don't think he is that great anyway. You may be right though. I wont lose sleep over it.
    Difference of opinion. I think he is a great #2 receiver, but not #1. I would, however, hate to see someone with his after the catch ability leave the team.

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    5. Bad Free Agency. Ok, you have $34mil in cap room, and the best you can do is Ben Leber, Chester Taylor, and Steve Hutchinson (maybe)? I like Hutchinson, and I think Taylor will be an ok RB, but this is rather unimpressive given some of the names available. Knowing that we were losing Culpepper, why not make a move for Brees?

    I find this reasoning faulty. Why are they bad moves? Because you don't recognize their names? If the coach has a plan and things these blue collar workers will help it more then throwing truckloads of money to high priced, high attitude players then more power to him. Just because these guys don't make the all madden team meand they should be written off. You will have to wait to see them play, to see them perform for our team to make these claims stick.
    I'll address this in another post - don't want to get overly long with this one.


    "Del Rio" wrote:
    6. Coaching hires. We let go of Steve Loney, one of the leagues best O-Line coaches. Instead we now have two or three nobody coaches to coach the O-Line by committee. Tell me this isn't a recipe for disaster.

    This isn't a recipe for disaster it is an over reaction.
    We'll see as it plays out. If we land Hutch, then the talent of the players may make up for the lack of coaching, but the idea of having a coach by committee approach just doesn't sit right with me.

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    7. Triangle of Authority. Anytime a team gives a nickname to something like this, it fails (remember the "Randy Ratio"?). The so-called triangle of authority that will make decisions will inevitably collapse at some point and cause a lot of consternation among the organization.

    If that is all the proof you have (randy ratio) then I'm not sold on it. Overreaction IMO
    Its more than the Randy Ratio - its an unproven system. There's a reason most organizations have one person who is responsible for a set of responsibility, and another for another set of responsibilities, etc. Its because it works. Authority by committee is a recipe for power struggles and lack of action. From an organizational management standpoint, I don't think this is a good idea. It will work fine when everyone agrees, but what happens when a fundamental philosophical difference arises?


    "Del Rio" wrote:
    8. All Rookie Coaching Staff. I don't believe any of the coaches in the new staff made a lateral move to the Vikings. I am pretty sure that they were all promoted to their position. The law of averages says that there is going to be a couple of duds in the group.

    Great coaches need to start somewhere, you have no idea they wont make a huge impact. Even though the real law of averages does not apply, I will say that there is a reason it is called a staff. Not all coaches will be great they will work together as a team. Individually they may be weak together they may have a chemistry unmatched. You have no idea until we get to see them in action.
    I think we will see that some of the new coaches we hired are great - but at the same time, we will likely have some duds. Its just the way things work. I guess I'm thinking about this like a stock portfolio - you want to put your portfolio together with some proven winners and some rising stars. If you choose only rising stars, you are likely to lose big somewhere.

    "Del Rio" wrote:
    9. Losing Free Agents. Will Demps and Dexter Jackson were both supposed to visit the Vikes. Of course they weren't aggressive in going after them, and both signed with other teams. We need help in the secondary again (losing Chavous and B. Williams) and currently there are no plans to bring anyone in. We need help at linebacker, yet no news of bringing in Julian Peterson or Lavaar Arrington. As the team with the most money to spend, why can't we get people to even vist?

    We had near the most cash available. Wilf has prooven he doesn't piss around. If we wanted them they would have been here at least for a meeting. If we didn't want them they it really isn't a loss.
    Wilf has proven that he doesn't piss around, but we don't know anything about Foley or even Childress and whether they piss around. Wilf is just signing the checks, these other guys are calling the shots.

    It was pretty widely reported that we were interested in Jackson, but he didn't even make an appearance...why not?

    I see a lot of blind faith in the management group, which is fine. IMO, though, I think that there are some serious issues which need to be questioned. We are dealing with an ENTIRE staff, from the owner to the coaches, who are entering this football game in positions that they are new at. Assuming that they have some master plan that coaches and owners who have been in the league for years have not been able to put together is wishful thinking. I just am not seeing enough positive moves to think that they have some hidden agenda which will shock the league.

  7. #17
    nfl-forums's Avatar
    nfl-forums is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    51

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "VikesfaninWis" wrote:
    I agree with Cajun, and Del on this one. I disagree with just about everything you said in your post.

    First off, we did 1 game better without Moss. Enough said.

    Culpepper has turned into a whiner and baby. He asked for his trade or release, and he got it. We did better with BJ, and we will do better without Pepp in the longhaul..

    I will take my chances on the Vikings orginization over your opinion anyday.. I respect your opinion on this, but that is all it is, opinion..

    Have faith, you go into all of this with that mindset, you will be looking for bad things all season long. I have your screen name saved now with this post.. If the Vikings do good next season ( and they will) I don't want to see you jumpin on the bandwagon :razz:
    Oh I'll be hitching my wagon to any positive bandwagon I can find! I want nothing more than to be proven wrong.

    Mark my words - if the Vikings win 8 games or more next season, I will admit that I was at least partially wrong! I have no problem saying that I am wrong, especially when I am being pessimistic. :lol:

    BTW...I may be relatively new as far as a poster, but I've been a lurker for a while, so I'm familiar with most of you. Just haven't really posted because these forums are so busy that its easy to get lost on page 17.

  8. #18
    nfl-forums's Avatar
    nfl-forums is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    51

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    Welcome to PP.O nfl-forums. Pretty strong post for your third one lol! But you backed your opinions up with your reasoning, and I like that.

    Unfortunately, I side with Del and disagree with pretty much everything you said! Especially when you complain about our free agency so far. As someone in another post said, this isn't Madden - one team is not going to get the number one FA in every position (I'd give credit where credit is due, but I honestly can't remember who said that). And keep in mind that we have great prospects in every position except QB in the draft this year too. Our front office knows what they are doing, give them a chance before you condem them.
    Nodak,

    Thanks for the welcome.

    On the FA thing - I agree 100% with the notion that we shouldn't be spending money for the sake of spending money. I am actually REALLY excited about the Chestor Taylor signing. I don't think anyone knows just how good this kid is going to be. He's going to be a real force in this league as a featured back, and if we do land Hutch and shore up that O-Line, he's going to have a field day with us (especially if the passing game gets fired up).

    Here's the deal with FA that I am having problems with. Ben Leber - I like the signing overall. He has shown talent with San Diego, and he should fit well into our scheme since we need athletic linebackers who can defend the pass (necessary for cover 2 - Julian Peterson is more of a run stopper). But there is a lot more work that needs to be done in the linebacking corps to get to the point where we can effectively run the cover 2. I don't see us working hard to get the guys we need for this scheme.

    Another example - Pat Williams. The guy was a STUD in our last scheme, but in the Tampa 2, he's not going to really fit. The Tampa 2 relies on fast, althetic and smaller D-Linemen. Look at Hovan - didn't work in the traditional 'clog up the line' Minnesota defense, but he goes to Tampa (phenomonal defense), and succeeds. Because this coaching staff has decided to throw out over a decade of the way football has been played in Minnesota (WCO vs a stretch and run || d-line focused defense verses the "bend don't break" Tampa 2), they need to get personell to fit. But instead they are going with the same players who may not necessarily fit the scheme.

    I guess that is where my problem comes in - the new staff wants to put a brand new system in place. That's fine. But a brand new system is going to require players who fit that system, and we just spent the past 5 years getting players for a completely different system. You would think that with all the cap room we have, we would be aggressively pursuing players that fit our new scheme. Instead, we have a total 5-7 signings, 4-5 of which are new players, 1 of which is recognized to be an outstanding player at his position.

  9. #19
    badbois's Avatar
    badbois is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    301

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    lot of you are talking about trust. trust is earned. these guys are rookie coaches who have accomplished little. what they are doing looks bad and there isn't much out there that could redeem them. if they don't get hutch, this offseason has to be seen as a failure.

  10. #20
    whackthepack is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,535

    Re: New Ownership FUBARing this Team

    "nfl-forums" wrote:
    Wilf has proven that he doesn't piss around, but we don't know anything about Foley or even Childress and whether they piss around. Wilf is just signing the checks, these other guys are calling the shots.

    It was pretty widely reported that we were interested in Jackson, but he didn't even make an appearance...why not?

    They had their initial FA in right away, and he was in the next group. They had him scheduled for a visit on Monday, Sunday night and Monday the TwinCities got hit with a big snow storm that dropped as much as 18 inches of snow around the metro area. His appointment was delayed until Tuesday, which left him in Cinci over night, the Bungels used that time to sweeten the offer and got him signed.

    The Vikings organization can not be held responsible for the weather! Will some people on here probably do blame them, they blame them for everything else.



    But the other safety is supposedly who they really wanted, and they had him coming on Monday also! The Giants told him this is the offer, if you do not accept it now then we will withdraw it and will not make another one, so he signed it!

    Guess we need to blame that on Childress too!



    They should have been more aggressive on getting a safety in the first day, I agree! But they did make a reasonable attempt to get one and it failed!
    What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1234 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. TV ownership down in America
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2011, 08:39 PM
  2. Anyone Doubt This Ownership Group?
    By Marrdro in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-07-2010, 01:05 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2007, 11:08 PM
  4. With ownership comes headaches
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2006, 11:56 AM
  5. Ownership group makes moves, even if some don't make sense
    By Muggsy in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-07-2006, 01:55 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •