Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 56 of 56
  1. #51
    Traveling_Vike is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    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 think you are confusing goals with reasonable expectations. See my response to Reignman, right above here.

    Yes, the GOAL is always to win the Super Bowl. But it is far from reasonable to EXPECT that every year. Some years, you are even expected to get worse.

    I still believe we had a successful season because we made the playoffs & finished with a good record.
    That's a great definition. Works for me. Problem there is, if we had been expected to go farther than that, I would not really consider that successful. 1998 was a failure, since we were expected to go to the big game and did not make it there. Lots of great things to remember, but not a success.

    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.
    I have to disagree with this. It's not about improvement one year to the next. It's about what was predicted for that one year only, regardless of what came before. Unless you are expected to win the Super Bowl, you can always do better that expected.

    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?
    Not applicable. When we get to preseason and start making predictions, then we can talk. Whatever those expectations end up being, that's what I will measure our results against. Not this year's result, next years expectation. See the difference?

    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?
    Yes. Simple, by my definition. A success, but not as much of one as what we actually did achieve.

    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?
    Probably very few. But their definitions are not mine. And remember too that successful (marginally in this case) does not equal satisfying.

    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"?
    By my definition, yes. They failed.

    "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.
    I completely agree. My definition isn't the same as everyone else's, but it is just as valid. So is yours, and so is Reign's, and so is everyone else's. That is why I felt I had to define my terms before answering the original question.

    So we both feel, for different reasons, that this was a successful, although less than entirely satisfying, season. I can live with that. And I'll hope that we both feel more satisfied next year.

    My Meeple is purple. What color is yours?

  2. #52
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike View Post
    I think you are confusing goals with reasonable expectations. See my response to Reignman, right above here.

    Yes, the GOAL is always to win the Super Bowl. But it is far from reasonable to EXPECT that every year. Some years, you are even expected to get worse.



    That's a great definition. Works for me. Problem there is, if we had been expected to go farther than that, I would not really consider that successful. 1998 was a failure, since we were expected to go to the big game and did not make it there. Lots of great things to remember, but not a success.



    I have to disagree with this. It's not about improvement one year to the next. It's about what was predicted for that one year only, regardless of what came before. Unless you are expected to win the Super Bowl, you can always do better that expected.



    Not applicable. When we get to preseason and start making predictions, then we can talk. Whatever those expectations end up being, that's what I will measure our results against. Not this year's result, next years expectation. See the difference?



    Yes. Simple, by my definition. A success, but not as much of one as what we actually did achieve.



    Probably very few. But their definitions are not mine. And remember too that successful (marginally in this case) does not equal satisfying.



    By my definition, yes. They failed.



    I completely agree. My definition isn't the same as everyone else's, but it is just as valid. So is yours, and so is Reign's, and so is everyone else's. That is why I felt I had to define my terms before answering the original question.

    So we both feel, for different reasons, that this was a successful, although less than entirely satisfying, season. I can live with that. And I'll hope that we both feel more satisfied next year.
    When you claim losing an NFC Championship or the SB is failure, but finishing a season 8-8 is successful based solely on what some chump analyst(s) predict, clearly your definition of success is far different than mine.

    BTW, I don't recall anyone predicting us to win the Super Bowl in 1998 before the season began, That didn't get predicted until much later in the season when we were wining.

    Since a lot of analysts disagree & don't predict the same records for each team or playoff winners, whose do you go by when deeming the Vikings a success or failure if we meet or don't meet those predictions?

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  3. #53
    Traveling_Vike is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    When you claim losing an NFC Championship or the SB is failure, but finishing a season 8-8 is successful based solely on what some chump analyst(s) predict, clearly your definition of success is far different than mine.
    So it seems, but you insist on comparing one season with another, when I do not. he question was an absolute, not a relative. "What do you consider to be a successful season?" Not compared to others, but strictly on its own merit. That's how I tried to answer it.

    And for what it's worth, I never quoted any "chump analysts" either, although the majority of them were right in line with our own consensus opinion on here. I respect the opinions of many posters here (yourself included) more than most of the "pros," but I try to take them into account as well.

    The overwhelming opinion in these parts was that we would be a 6-10 team, give or take a game.

    BTW, I don't recall anyone predicting us to win the Super Bowl in 1998 before the season began, That didn't get predicted until much later in the season when we were wining.
    You may nave me there, as I'm getting older and my memory isn't what it used to be. Serves me right for trying to pull an example of out my behind. But at least I know we were supposed to be very good that year.

    Since a lot of analysts disagree & don't predict the same records for each team or playoff winners, whose do you go by when deeming the Vikings a success or failure if we meet or don't meet those predictions?
    Consensus, I believe is what I said. Most folks thought we would be sub-.500, pros and amateurs alike. I could probably count close to 200 people whose opinions factored in to the consensus figure I mentioned. I think that ought to be a large enough sample size. It's an average based on a lot of input.

    I could base it equally well on my own prediction, which was 7-9, improved but not yet ready for prime time. Slightly better than the average prediction, but still well short of the actual result.

    It's really pretty simple, We did better than almost anyone expected or predicted, That makes it a successful season in my eyes. But again, still not satisfying. Please try to keep that distinction in mind.

    My Meeple is purple. What color is yours?

  4. #54
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike View Post
    So it seems, but you insist on comparing one season with another, when I do not. he question was an absolute, not a relative. "What do you consider to be a successful season?" Not compared to others, but strictly on its own merit. That's how I tried to answer it.

    And for what it's worth, I never quoted any "chump analysts" either, although the majority of them were right in line with our own consensus opinion on here. I respect the opinions of many posters here (yourself included) more than most of the "pros," but I try to take them into account as well.

    The overwhelming opinion in these parts was that we would be a 6-10 team, give or take a game.
    LOL! Where in God's name do you get that I insist on comparing one season with another? Nothing could be further from the truth. Clearly I do not & have stated that multiple times here.

    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    Regardless of what we did last year, I don't look at last years record & grade the current year based on a curve. I just look at last year as being unsuccessful, wipe the slate clean & start over again the following year.
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I don't base success on how much we improved over last year
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I don't base my team being successful on what they did or didn't do last year.
    What I'm getting at with the chump analysts comment is that you are basing our teams success on whether or not we exceed what a bunch of analysts predict. You can certainly include the consensus of fans in that sum. It doesn't matter, the point is those are just predictions.

    Analysts may have a little more football knowledge than your average Vikings fan has, but I bet we watch more Vikings football than most of them.

    You say you aren't basing success this year off of anything we did last year, but rather if we exceed expectations/predictions of the consensus of analysts & fans each year. Thing is though, many of those predictions that the analysts & fans come up with are based off of the previous years record.

    Also, at least IMO, if the analysts are predicting a team to make it to the SB & they end up losing the Championship game (not meeting expectations) I don't see that as failure. They were still predicted to have a successful season albeit it wasn't as successful as predicted.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  5. #55
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899
    Quote Originally Posted by kevoncox View Post
    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
    Sure QB's help a WR, but that QB knows were his WR's are going to be. I'm 100% convinced that our WR's were so bad that Ponder didn't have a clue what they were going to do once they got to the line and made their pre-snap reads and adjustments.

    Well, other than Percy.

    And tell me again who his deep receivers were that got open all the time? What game was it that the receivers didn't get one throw for almost the whole game but AD and Toby both got open deep?

    Ponder wound up missing both of them, but seriously, how many times do you think Ponder worked the timing of those routes with AD and Toby.

    As with our good friend Singer, I'm gonna have fun about mid season with you and how you will be trying to change your tune about your feelings on young Ponder.....you know, like you are doing with Griff......snicker.....
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #56
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Marrdro View Post
    As with our good friend Singer, I'm gonna have fun about mid season with you and how you will be trying to change your tune about your feelings on young Ponder.....you know, like you are doing with Griff......snicker.....
    In other words you'll once again be claiming how Ponder was spot on with all his passes but the receiver was either too fast or too slow with his route running, didn't break off when he was supposed to or zigged when he was supposed to zag.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

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
  •