You'll need more than Luck ( no pun intended ) you will have to clean house, manning has made that team AND staff look better than they are.
If that ends up being the case (and it's possible based on rumors) then we REALLY need Luck.
Yes! 0-4, and going for 0-5 this week! Wooo-hooo....we are in the Suck for Luck sweepstakes. Even if we decide to keep Ponder, we can get a King's Ransom for the 1st draft pick. Either way I hope we finish the season without a win.
The worst thing that could happen is you could end up like the Vikings for so many years, never bad enough to finish with a terrible record, rarely good enough to finish with a great one. Those 7-9 years that string together are what keeps teams down.
If you guys go 0-16, you'll get it, unless somebody else has the misfortune to do even worse. It might not be a bad idea maximize that 1st draft pick and get a King's Ransom for it as you say. You guys need to seriously start rebuilding and get out of limbo. Ivo, has a good point, you guys seem to be stuck in a holding pattern of 7-9 seasons. So if you are lucky enough to suck the worst and get the first pick, either take Luck or cash in your chips and rebuild. The problem is, rebuilding can take years and some are not that patient to hang around and wait. Better have a competent owner to make good choices that are going to benefit the team for years to come. This season may already be over for you guys, but if I were the owner of the Vikings, I wouldn't be looking at this season, I'd be focusing on as far as 3 years from now and what I would do with the first pick if I had it.
You may be right, but then again teams have been turning around these days in one season. It just depends. The careers of football players are so short, that a dominating team can become less so very quickly. Just look at Indy, they lose Manning and they are in the Suck for Luck Sweepstakes with the Vikes. Just think what would happen to the Pack if Aaron Rodgers goes down with an injury this Sunday....it would turn their season into a probable bust. So I'm never looking down the road 3 years in the NFL, cause it changes every year.
I say play Ponder NOW. Let's see how good he is, and whether we want to make him the future. If he is the future, trade away the high draft pick we will have, build a giant line in front of him, get some awesome WRs, and start winning before AP leaves.
I hear ya. I was one of the people who was against the Vikings getting McNabb. I thought they should of started Ponder from day 1 this season. Not that they have McNabb, I think they should make good use having him and let him mentor Ponder. But you are right, the Vikings need to see what they have in Ponder and the sooner the better. Or NOW, as you say.
Has Minnesota ever been 0-4?
It's kinda hard to believe even after all this time. They haven't sucked for so long, I guess last year was the beginning of it.
Ever since I was a little kid, the Vikings were always our biggest competition (before Chicago got good in recent years). Sure we had problems with Barry Sanders' Lions sometimes, but not near as bad as the washed up quarterback led Minnesota Vikings.
Actually it's only about 4-5 plays from 0-4 to 4-0 for them. That's how close they really were. But....you have to make those plays.Raptor, you know what? I firmly believe the Vikings would be 4-0 except for the fact that their opponents keep showing up.
Just for the sake of it. MN: 26% of it's seasons were less than .500. To put that in perspective Green Bay is at 33% for seasons under .500.
Titletown does no change the fact on my numbers. While Green Bay does have the titles they also have a higher percentage of losing seasons than the Vikings. The 50's and 70's were not good years the Pack. New England is at 40%. Kinda surprised me. As did the Packers 33%. I thought it would be lower. Pittsburg is at 49%. Throw that out there the next time Steeler fans start talking smack on 6 Super Bowls.Career winning % Vikings - .548 Packers - .560
Should I put the nickname "titletown" in perspective for you as well?
Actually it's only about 4-5 plays from 0-4 to 4-0 for them. That's how close they really were. But....you have to make those plays.
Titletown does no change the fact on my numbers. While Green Bay does have the titles they also have a higher percentage of losing seasons than the Vikings. The 50's and 70's were not good years the Pack. New England is at 40%. Kinda surprised me. As did the Packers 33%. I thought it would be lower. Pittsburg is at 49%. Throw that out there the next time Steeler fans start talking smack on 6 Super Bowls.
The difference in .548 and .560 is about 2-3 good vs. bad seasons.
And you know, that's true. Winning a few titles changes everything. However, at this point MN would have to win about 6-8 Super Bowls for many "Football" fans to consider them a "winning" team. Because they lost 4 first that will always come to peoples minds first. It's just the way people think. Nobody talks about the Broncos losing 4 times because they won 2. But I would lay you odds when MN wins 2 those 4 will keep coming up. Hell, most people probably don't even know the Bronco's lost 4.The only thing that seems to matter or remembered is the titles. Packers have a better winning % but a few more losing seasons than the Vikings. Also, depending on how you count it, a dozen or so more titles than the Vikings. I guess our bad seasons are worse, and our great seasons are better.
So would I. So would most Viking fans.I will take more titles over less losing seasons
Titletown does no change the fact on my numbers. While Green Bay does have the titles they also have a higher percentage of losing seasons than the Vikings. The 50's and 70's were not good years the Pack. New England is at 40%. Kinda surprised me. As did the Packers 33%. I thought it would be lower. Pittsburg is at 49%. Throw that out there the next time Steeler fans start talking smack on 6 Super Bowls.
The difference in .548 and .560 is about 2-3 good vs. bad seasons.
That' why it's based on a winning percentage of seasons played. Whether they were around for the 30's or 40 doesn't change the percentage. You also have to remember in the 30's and 40's there were only 12-14 teams and they only played 12 games a year on average. So they should have had a better chance of winning more. They didn't. A winning record back then only took 7 games. Actually, now you made me think. I need to go back and check my math. My numbers may be off.Considering the Vikings weren't around to lose in the 30's, 40's and 50's. Yet the Steelers were.
Vikings won't be in the running at 12-4!Vikings wont take Luck, they drafted Ponder in the first round unless they trade him (which would be dumb) Luck will be either a Colt, Dolphin or Chief next year.