Vikings v. Packers

[RpR]

11 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Paper tigers. They rattled off these meaningless wins once they were eliminated from playoff contention. 

Not really.

Definition: Someone or something that appears formidable but is ultimately harmless or powerless.

[Vanimal46]

18th overall pick locked in. Oh boy 

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Draft position yeah, but I’m not too worried about the difference between playing Washington or the giants or even the colts/titans. Softer schedules don’t make a team better. Opposite, probably

There are some games that swing is much bigger though.  Does 49ers vs. Cards not make a difference to you?

[TheLeviathan]

For those of you dismissing the loss of draft position, let me put it in some context:

Say the Vikings had held around 10th in the draft.  They had potential to be higher had they bottomed out (4-13 would have been no worse than 7th), but let's say for the sake of argument that they won a couple games and finished with 6 wins instead of 9.  

The difference in draft value from 10th to 18th is roughly equivalent to pick 40.  So a high second rounder.  These wins we got at the end of the year cost us a high second round pick, plus the drop in every other round subsequently.

It is a massive loss of value in every quantifiable and qualitative way you can imagine.

[Aggies7]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

There are some games that swing is much bigger though.  Does 49ers vs. Cards not make a difference to you?

It matters, but if they aren’t good enough to beat whatever SF is next season, they probably aren’t good enough to be super bowl champs anyway. If the Vikings played a last place schedule this season instead of a second place one, would they be any more likely to win?

[Vanimal46]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

For those of you dismissing the loss of draft position, let me put it in some context:

Say the Vikings had held around 10th in the draft.  They had potential to be higher had they bottomed out (4-13 would have been no worse than 7th), but let's say for the sake of argument that they one a couple games and finished with 6 wins instead of 9.  

The difference in draft value from 10th to 18th is roughly equivalent to pick 40.  So a high second rounder.  These wins we got at the end of the year cost us a high second round pick, plus the drop in every other round subsequently.

It is a massive loss of value in every quantifiable and qualitative way you can imagine.

Not just that, it's not like the last 5 wins felt like good, quality wins. Washington, Giants, and Packers might as well not even show up to the stadium for our games. Detroit I guess was okay? Dallas was meh. 

I don't feel any better about the QB situation this offseason, nor do I feel good about young guys popping off at the end of the season. 

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

It matters, but if they aren’t good enough to beat whatever SF is next season, they probably aren’t good enough to be super bowl champs anyway. If the Vikings played a last place schedule this season instead of a second place one, would they be any more likely to win?

If your goal is only Super Bowl and all things are seen through that filter, then you should be even more in favor of tanking in a lost season.  Can't have it both ways.

[Aggies7]

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

For those of you dismissing the loss of draft position, let me put it in some context:

Say the Vikings had held around 10th in the draft.  They had potential to be higher had they bottomed out (4-13 would have been no worse than 7th), but let's say for the sake of argument that they one a couple games and finished with 6 wins instead of 9.  

The difference in draft value from 10th to 18th is roughly equivalent to pick 40.  So a high second rounder.  These wins we got at the end of the year cost us a high second round pick, plus the drop in every other round subsequently.

It is a massive loss of value in every quantifiable and qualitative way you can imagine.

But in reality, who were the 3 teams they should have lost to? Hell, brosmer had 8 quarters of action during the 5 game win streak and they still won 5 games.

Washington, terrible. Dallas, average at best. The giants didn’t try. Neither did the packers today. The lions finished behind us and collapsed down the stretch.

Unless the players totally phoned it in (they wouldn’t) or the staff had an intentionally poor game plan (doubtful), they were not losing the majority of these last 5 games.
 

 

[Vanimal46]

3 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

But in reality, who were the 3 teams they should have lost to? Hell, brosmer had 8 quarters of action during the 5 game win streak and they still won 5 games.

Washington, terrible. Dallas, average at best. The giants didn’t try. Neither did the packers today. The lions finished behind us and collapsed down the stretch.

Unless the players totally phoned it in (they wouldn’t) or the staff had an intentionally poor game plan (doubtful), they were not losing the majority of these last 5 games.
 

 

Sad but true. The fact that none of the wins felt good makes it even more frustrating. Such is life in NFL purgatory. 

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

But in reality, who were the 3 teams they should have lost to? Hell, brosmer had 8 quarters of action during the 5 game win streak and they still won 5 games.

Washington, terrible. Dallas, average at best. The giants didn’t try. Neither did the packers today. The lions finished behind us and collapsed down the stretch.

Unless the players totally phoned it in (they wouldn’t) or the staff had an intentionally poor game plan (doubtful), they were not losing the majority of these last 5 games.
 

 

I mean...by your own accounting other teams absolutely did phone it in.  This is a team that could've shut down quite a few players like Jones, O'Neill, Kelly, Greenard, (and I'm sure there are others playing through things) that would've likely lead to a loss with Dallas.  Or even the Giants.

Would it have been kinda ugly and hard to swallow?  Sure.  It's also massively valuable to your future rather than sunk cost.

[TheLeviathan]

The empty wins will feel even worse if Flores takes those as resume builders and leaves.

Seriously, what's the argument against the indisputable loss of value the team got?  Did you feel better about anything on the team for 2026 thanks to these wins?

[TheLeviathan]

5 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Sad but true. The fact that none of the wins felt good makes it even more frustrating. Such is life in NFL purgatory. 

This is the key.  We got nothing of value and unquestionably lost future value for it.

[Aggies7]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean...by your own accounting other teams absolutely did phone it in.  This is a team that could've shut down quite a few players like Jones, O'Neill, Kelly, Greenard, (and I'm sure there are others playing through things) that would've likely lead to a loss with Dallas.  Or even the Giants.

Would it have been kinda ugly and hard to swallow?  Sure.  It's also massively valuable to your future rather than sunk cost.

Giants had an interim head coach and staff who won’t be there next season. They threw 12 passes that day. 32 today. Not sure what that was all about in our game, but it was odd.

2 possible less wins this season would probably not have been the missing piece to propel the Vikings to becoming super Bowl champs. Seattle has had one losing season in the last 14 years and has been in “draft purgatory” each of the last 3 seasons. How’s their drafting been?

 

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Giants had an interim head coach and staff who won’t be there next season. They threw 12 passes that day. 32 today. Not sure what that was all about in our game, but it was odd.

2 possible less wins this season would probably not have been the missing piece to propel the Vikings to becoming super Bowl champs. Seattle has had one losing season in the last 14 years and has been in “draft purgatory” each of the last 3 seasons. How’s their drafting been?

 

2 less wins is worth an extra 2nd round pick in value.  Those sorts of things add up.

2 less wins a few years ago and we have Drake Maye instead of JJ McCarthy.  Is that irrelevant too?

[Mike Sixel]

39 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

Or, those extra losses cost us a playoff birth.

Well..... They won five in a row after being eliminated, which is obviously what I meant. At least it seemed pretty obvious to me. 

[TheLeviathan]

Here's another thread making the same arguments.

So McCarthy = Maye or no?  If it's no...then your arguments were wrong then and they're wrong now.

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

2 less wins is worth an extra 2nd round pick in value.  Those sorts of things add up.

2 less wins a few years ago and we have Drake Maye instead of JJ McCarthy.  Is that irrelevant too?

This. 100 million times. This. 

[Aggies7]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

2 less wins is worth an extra 2nd round pick in value.  Those sorts of things add up.

2 less wins a few years ago and we have Drake Maye instead of JJ McCarthy.  Is that irrelevant too?

That team went 1-6 to finish the season and got a few unimaginable wins from a guy they signed off the street after Kirk and his replacement JAREN HALL went down with injury. What else could they have done to lose that year? They were starting Jaren Hall 😂 Maybe it’s rotten luck.

[Mike Sixel]

27 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Not just that, it's not like the last 5 wins felt like good, quality wins. Washington, Giants, and Packers might as well not even show up to the stadium for our games. Detroit I guess was okay? Dallas was meh. 

I don't feel any better about the QB situation this offseason, nor do I feel good about young guys popping off at the end of the season. 

Which young guy even played and showed improvement other than Turner? Not one. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

That team went 1-6 to finish the season and got a few unimaginable wins from a guy they signed off the street after Kirk and his replacement JAREN HALL went down with injury. What else could they have done to lose that year? They were starting Jaren Hall 😂 Maybe it’s rotten luck.

Lots of teams find ways to lose.  This is not the impossible ask you make it out to be.

[RpR]

I will admit, the game would have been a bit more interesting, and even, if Brosmer had started.

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Which young guy even played and showed improvement other than Turner? Not one. 

Which says a lot about the position coaches and GM.

[Aggies7]

29 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Lots of teams find ways to lose.  This is not the impossible ask you make it out to be.

Bad teams do, yeah. And we thought the Vikings were but apparently they weren’t. Looking at the league standings, they are finishing about where they should be, in the middle.

If you really aren’t interested in winning, the time to do that is during the offseason. But good luck getting the HC and a battered FO at this point to intentionally get themselves fired by trading valuable players and sucking for several years. I’m a realist.

I can’t get mad at the team for winning 5 games down the stretch when they played a non NFL caliber QB half the time and were still better than their opponents. Expecting them to shut down 5 or however many healthy-ish guys to facilitate losing is crazy and probably not going to happen.

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Bad teams do, yeah. And we thought the Vikings were but apparently they weren’t. Looking at the league standings, they are finishing about where they should be, in the middle.

If you really aren’t interested in winning, the time to do that is during the offseason. But good luck getting the HC and a battered FO at this point to intentionally get themselves fired by trading valuable players and sucking for several years. I’m a realist.

I can’t get mad at the team for winning 5 games down the stretch when they played a non NFL caliber QB half the time and were still better than their opponents. Expecting them to shut down 5 or however many healthy-ish guys to facilitate losing is crazy and probably not going to happen.

The Chiefs are actively finding a way to do it right now.  Jets.  Cowboys.  Titans.  Raiders.  Commies.  

Teams should invest in their future rather than care about how people feel in the present when they're terrible and going nowhere.

[Aggies7]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The Chiefs are actively finding a way to do it right now.  Jets.  Cowboys.  Titans.  Raiders.  Commies.  

Teams should invest in their future rather than care about how people feel in the present when they're terrible and going nowhere.

I mean, they did shut down Darrisaw (or he shut himself down) after the Washington game. Greenard has been out since after the Dallas game. Oneill out since the giants game. Who else should they have kept out that would have been the big difference maker? Been on their second and third RBs. I just don’t know what else you wanted them to do. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Aggies7 said:

I mean, they did shut down Darrisaw (or he shut himself down) after the Washington game. Greenard has been out since after the Dallas game. Oneill out since the giants game. Who else should they have kept out that would have been the big difference maker? Been on their second and third RBs. I just don’t know what else you wanted them to do.

O'Neill played today didn't he?  Jones probably won them the Giants game.  Had we been running Chandler we might have lost one game there.

Some of it is just giving up via playcalling.  Run more and throw less.  Blitz less.  

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

O'Neill played today didn't he?  Jones probably won them the Giants game.  Had we been running Chandler we might have lost one game there.

Some of it is just giving up via playcalling.  Run more and throw less.  Blitz less.  

And I'd have preferred losing to Detroit and beating GB.....

I'm actually not complaining they tried to win! I'm disappointed they did once they were eliminated. Had they played Felton and Rouse and anyone else in the first half of their rookie deal and won, I'd feel better. But Turner was it for young guys playing and showing improvement. That's it. What did they learn and teach the last five weeks? 

[Aggies7]

14 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

And I'd have preferred losing to Detroit and beating GB.....

I'm actually not complaining they tried to win! I'm disappointed they did once they were eliminated. Had they played Felton and Rouse and anyone else in the first half of their rookie deal and won, I'd feel better. But Turner was it for young guys playing and showing improvement. That's it. What did they learn and teach the last five weeks? 

I learned that they can’t let Flores walk, if possible. Also learned that McCarthy showed some promise and didn’t look so totally lost as he did earlier, but they still need get a veteran quarterback because of his health questions. New QB room coming. Also learned that Nailor can maybe play a bit.

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

I learned that they can’t let Flores walk, if possible. Also learned that McCarthy showed some promise and didn’t look so totally lost as he did earlier, but they still need get a veteran quarterback because of his health questions. New QB room coming. Also learned that Nailor can maybe play a bit.

That's, like, almost nothing learned. Or any young players mentioned. That's either a coaching or FO issue. Or both. 

Doors McCarthy realistically look ready to be elite in his third year? If not you have to deal Addison and add to the future when maybe, possibly, McCarthy is great. 

[gunnarthor]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Which young guy even played and showed improvement other than Turner? Not one. 

I guess this is an eye of the beholder thing but McCarthy looked a lot better. I get that the haters want to say he played bad defenses so the results don't matter but he absolutely played a lot better. His QB rating over those games was over 95.