Thread: What do you consider a successful season?

This is kind of a sneaky question. "Successful" is an extremely subjective term. So to answer this properly, I'll need to define the term as I see it in this context. To me, a successful season would be one in which the team meets or exceeds expectations set before the season began. I'll even stretch this to allow for the consensus expectations, rather than just my own.

The consensus opinion, both around here and via the professional analysts, was that the Vikings were expected to improve, but not by all that much, remaining a sub-.500 team. By those lights, this was not only a successful season, but an outstandingly successful one.

Successful, however, does not equal satisfying for most folks. Some just have to complain, no matter what.

Originally Posted by Marrdro

I don't think Jenkins is back even if Harvin leaves. Wright will move into that spot if they don't add a cat like Avery.

I'm 100% convinced the main effort will be to upgrade via the draft, but they will have to also have to satisfy a PR requirement surrounding the QB and to do that you can't do it with only rook WR's.

Lets not forget, Ponders issues (or perceived issues) didn't come to light until after his Vet WR went down and he was left with the likes of Jenkins to throw to.

My guess is we will add 2 WR's in the draft. 1 will be a X, one will be a Z and we will bring in at least 2 Z vets plus a butt load of UDFA WR's to see if we can find a Gem.

Revisionist history my friend. Even before Percy's injury, Ponder's issues were made well aware. He simply could not complete a pass deep to save his life. It was well documented that we had nothing completed deeper than 15 yards for quiet some time. Even when that did happen, he missed them by a mile. Now I know what you are saying, perharps it was thr WR running the wrong route. It's possible once or twice but not all the damn time, these guys are professional. Out QBs issues aren't going anywhere. The kid is accurate short but he is aweful middle deep and deep.

Adding a WR will help him... but shouldn't we have a QB that can can help his WRs? You don't really think that all of Rodger's WRs do you. Some guys can throw guys open. Our guy, throws open guys covered! FACT

Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike

This is kind of a sneaky question. "Successful" is an extremely subjective term. So to answer this properly, I'll need to define the term as I see it in this context. To me, a successful season would be one in which the team meets or exceeds expectations set before the season began. I'll even stretch this to allow for the consensus expectations, rather than just my own.

The consensus opinion, both around here and via the professional analysts, was that the Vikings were expected to improve, but not by all that much, remaining a sub-.500 team. By those lights, this was not only a successful season, but an outstandingly successful one.

Successful, however, does not equal satisfying for most folks. Some just have to complain, no matter what.

I don't disagree with anything in your post. Success in the NFL is subjective because everyone has their own opinion. We all have different expectations and levels of satisfaction. Personally I'm satisfied with some things and disappointed in others. I see plenty of room for improvement.

However football isn't just a form of entertainment. The goal for every team is to win the super bowl, even if you're the Chiefs. And every year you don't win the super bowl, you've done something wrong. Either in previous years or the current year. So by that token I can hardly call this a successful season. Improved yes, successful no, on the right track possibly.

As far as the complaining goes, fans prefer to find fault with their own team rather than give credit to their opponents, and that comes off as excessive complaining. I'm not complaining, I just refuse to give the other team credit for a good play or game. Capers didn't come up with a good scheme vs Webb, Webb just sucked. It happens on every play and every game. The Packers only beat us because Ponder missed the game etc etc. Not only do we complain when our own team messes up, we complain when our opponent does good, and that's why you get a higher complain to praise ratio. I like to think of it as being critical because I want them to succeed ... yeah, that's it.

And there isn't as much praise when a guy does well because well, it's his job to do well. That's why game day threads are longer when we lose, there's more to be critical of, not to mention some fans just need to vent their frustration. It's a form of therapy to get things off your chest after a loss. When we win, well that was the goal and apparently more players did what they were supposed to do. Good job for doing what you were paid to do. And that's the way it should be. Only when you do what AD has done should the praise be laid on thick. This isn't little league after all.

I had a boss that used to say "it takes 3 at-a-boys to make up for 1 oh-shit". Doesn't sound fair but that's the way it is. You can play like a hall of famer all season long, but if you throw a pick on your final play of the NFCC game you're a bum.

And I don't believe in basing a seasons success or failure on how you finished the previous season. It was your teams fault they had a bad season the previous year. Sure maybe individual coaches and players can be let off the hook, but overall it was your franchise that made the bad choices that led them to 3-13.

There shouldn't be different standards for the Patriots, Vikings, or the Chiefs, they all have the same chance and play by the same rules. Only the Packers seem to play by a different set of rules in this league (I just watched Jordy Nelson clearly push off the defender in the end zone on an interception but the 9er that intercepted the ball was called for PI, unbelievable!).

Originally Posted by kevoncox

Our guy, throws open guys covered! FACT

Haha good stuff. Case in point, the play to a wide open Rudolph down in the red zone at Lambeau. His floater allowed the defender to close and prevent a sure TD.

Originally Posted by Reignman

Haha good stuff. Case in point, the play to a wide open Rudolph down in the red zone at Lambeau. His floater allowed the defender to close and prevent a sure TD.

One of many.... I rememeber open passes that hung WRs out to dry. If they caught it in stride it would be a 80 yard Td. Instead it's high and behind... The commentators sounded like a broken record... High and behind, High and behind, High and behind!.

The worst part of all this is that this is the time of year that people forget how bad he really is and start believing he is as good as most other QBs in the league. Like people really think he is as good as Alex Smith. We have no passing offense at all.

Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike

This is kind of a sneaky question. "Successful" is an extremely subjective term. So to answer this properly, I'll need to define the term as I see it in this context. To me, a successful season would be one in which the team meets or exceeds expectations set before the season began. I'll even stretch this to allow for the consensus expectations, rather than just my own.

The consensus opinion, both around here and via the professional analysts, was that the Vikings were expected to improve, but not by all that much, remaining a sub-.500 team. By those lights, this was not only a successful season, but an outstandingly successful one.

Successful, however, does not equal satisfying for most folks. Some just have to complain, no matter what.

I'm pretty sure every teams expectations & goal before the season begins is to win the SB. I don't believe our team did that. I don't think any teams goal is to simply improve over last years failure.

I still believe we had a successful season because we made the playoffs & finished with a good record.

I don't base success on how much we improved over last year or that we exceeded what some fans or analysts predicted. If we did that then we would reach a point where we couldn't improve any further.

Using your logic, now that we are 10-6 instead of last years 3-13, how much do we have to improve next year over this years 10-6 record to have it be deemed a successful year?

Using your logic, that the Vikings were expected to improve, but not by all that much, remaining a sub-.500 team, had we finished 8-8, 3rd in the division, would you consider that a successful season?

To me, a successful season would be one in which the team meets or exceeds expectations set before the season began.

There again, the consensus of fans & analysts expected us to be sub 500, say 6-10. Had we met those expectations & finished 6-10 how many of those people would have claimed we had a successful season?

By the same token, many fans & analysts predicted the Packers to win the SB. The Packers lost & will not win it. Did they have an "unsuccessful season"?

"Success" is very subjective to every individual.

I don't base my team being successful on what they did or didn't do last year.

If fans & analysts predict us to improve but still be unsuccessful or mediocre at best with a sub-500 record, I wouldn't claim we had a successful year because we met those expectations.

If you feel our team was successful because you felt we accomplished more than what many thought, then in your eyes we were successful & there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

All we can do is each offer up what we each feel success is.

Again, the Vikings played one more game than the Bears, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Lions, and Tampa. All of those teams have beat the Vikings in one hateful way or another. That alone would qualify as a successful season. The VAUNTED Rodgers or Manning are not making it to the Super Bowl. Ha Ha!!!! That they as great as they are and as much as our young QB is maligned, to only advance one more game than the Vikings, is a lil warm and fuzzy. No matter how the games went, the TEAM won the games. And exceeded season expectations. To go to work on Monday and hear, "man, those VIkings won again!", instead of "what happened to your Vikings?" more often than not, is a successful season. 31 teams go home in disappointment every year. The degree of disappointment was lesser because of expectations.

Originally Posted by TheAnimal93

Again, the Vikings played one more game than the Bears, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Lions, and Tampa. All of those teams have beat the Vikings in one hateful way or another. That alone would qualify as a successful season. The VAUNTED Rodgers or Manning are not making it to the Super Bowl. Ha Ha!!!! That they as great as they are and as much as our young QB is maligned, to only advance one more game than the Vikings, is a lil warm and fuzzy. No matter how the games went, the TEAM won the games. And exceeded season expectations. To go to work on Monday and hear, "man, those VIkings won again!", instead of "what happened to your Vikings?" more often than not, is a successful season. 31 teams go home in disappointment every year. The degree of disappointment was lesser because of expectations.

Then lets all expect them to go 0-16 every year so that every year is a successful year.

A win in the SB

Originally Posted by Reignman

I don't disagree with anything in your post. Success in the NFL is subjective because everyone has their own opinion. We all have different expectations and levels of satisfaction. Personally I'm satisfied with some things and disappointed in others. I see plenty of room for improvement.

I'm right with you there. While I call it a successful season in its own right, I am not satisfied either. Believe me, I crave that elusive Super Bowl victory as much as anyone here. And yes, there's plenty of room for improvement yet. But the question was, what defines a successful season, not, was I satisfied with it.

However football isn't just a form of entertainment. The goal for every team is to win the super bowl, even if you're the Chiefs. And every year you don't win the super bowl, you've done something wrong. Either in previous years or the current year. So by that token I can hardly call this a successful season. Improved yes, successful no, on the right track possibly.

Fine by me. You've stated your definition and it works. I just tend to differentiate between goals and reasonable expectations. The goal, every year, of course is to win it all. But it's far from reasonable to EXPECT that from your team every year, especially coming off such a dismal season as we had just had. I base my definition on those reasonable predictions. If you set your sights too high, you are that much more likely to be devastated when you don't reach the goal.

As far as the complaining goes, fans prefer to find fault with their own team rather than give credit to their opponents, and that comes off as excessive complaining. I'm not complaining, I just refuse to give the other team credit for a good play or game. Capers didn't come up with a good scheme vs Webb, Webb just sucked. It happens on every play and every game. The Packers only beat us because Ponder missed the game etc etc. Not only do we complain when our own team messes up, we complain when our opponent does good, and that's why you get a higher complain to praise ratio. I like to think of it as being critical because I want them to succeed ... yeah, that's it.

You make me smile, Reignman.

I really didn't intend to come down TOO hard on the complainers. It does get a bit tiresome, but it's not entirely unjustified, either. Except that thing about Ponder being a wuss for not playing...

BTW, did you catch that bit during the 49ers/Pack game about how the Packers thought that playing against Webb would help them prepare better for Kaepernick? That worked well for them, didn't it?

And there isn't as much praise when a guy does well because well, it's his job to do well. That's why game day threads are longer when we lose, there's more to be critical of, not to mention some fans just need to vent their frustration. It's a form of therapy to get things off your chest after a loss. When we win, well that was the goal and apparently more players did what they were supposed to do. Good job for doing what you were paid to do. And that's the way it should be. Only when you do what AD has done should the praise be laid on thick. This isn't little league after all.

No argument here. These are adults, they should not need too much external moral support. A little is nice, but get your butt out there and play, right?

I had a boss that used to say "it takes 3 at-a-boys to make up for 1 oh-shit". Doesn't sound fair but that's the way it is. You can play like a hall of famer all season long, but if you throw a pick on your final play of the NFCC game you're a bum.

Or near the end of regulation in a divisional game... oh, wait, Manning is still a hero, isn't he? I'm waiting to hear it about Denver: "Yeah, you won a playoff game last year with Tebow, and lost one this year with Manning. Who's better?"

And I don't believe in basing a seasons success or failure on how you finished the previous season. It was your teams fault they had a bad season the previous year. Sure maybe individual coaches and players can be let off the hook, but overall it was your franchise that made the bad choices that led them to 3-13.

Nor do I. Last year's finish has nothing to do with this year's. Only the pre-season predictions are what I base my "success" determination on. Sometimes you're even expected to be worse than you were before...

So the consensus prediction was about 6-10, give or take a game. We ended up 10-6 and with a Wildcard. Better than predicted, success. IMO.

There shouldn't be different standards for the Patriots, Vikings, or the Chiefs, they all have the same chance and play by the same rules. Only the Packers seem to play by a different set of rules in this league (I just watched Jordy Nelson clearly push off the defender in the end zone on an interception but the 9er that intercepted the ball was called for PI, unbelievable!).

Yeah, I saw that one too. Can anyone other than a Packers fan seriously believe they don't get special treatment? Fortunately, sometimes they just suck so bad that even the officials can't help them enough.

And I agree, same standard for everyone. Which, by my definitions, works just fine. The Colts were even more successful than we were, based on early predictions, but with the same end result. The Chiefs were a colossal failure. Redskins, success. Seahawks, success. Rams, failure. Giants, failure.

Doesn't matter which team you root for. If they did better than they were expected to, they succeeded. If not, they failed. That's my definition, and I'm sticking to it.

Still doesn't mean I'm satisfied, though.