N/S The Minnesota Vikings’ competitiveness (2 Viewers)

[Eagle02]

For starters, they don't consistently find themselves $80 million over the cap every season going into free agency.

This. I think they spread the wealth around rather than having one or two of the highest paid athletes at their position. I'd rather have a TEAM of very good players than have a franchise qb, running back, and/or receiver.

 

[WilliamBrees]

for all the talk of rebuilding and starting over, the Minnesota Vikings have NEVER had more than two losing seasons in a row. They always seem competitive no matter who is behind center and seem to bounce back from bad years the very next season. What do they do that works so well? Why do other teams (like us) just get stuck in a rut for half a decade or more? Granted, they have never held a Lombardi either.

They play in the NFC North with a strong home atmosphere. They also exploit any weaknesses by their division rivals.

 

[St. Geezy]

For starters, they don't consistently find themselves $80 million over the cap every season going into free agency.

So just to be clear, now that things didn’t work out, we are no longer reminding people as in your avatar to keep calm nor celebrating the ease of which we Make it Happen every year, and instead we are now vilifying for going down that previous road and now intentionally being less aggressive while rolling it back?

Hindsight really is 20/20, ain’t it?

No disrespect intended here, just pointing out to you and others how easy it becomes to point the finger at EVERYTHING when things aren’t going well, even the things we ourselves thought were correct paths. This “problem” isn’t significantly different than before, we can still “Make it Happen,” but we are taking steps to ease it back to a certain mean, and that action, and the previous actions that led us down this road that were celebrated at the time, are now being weaponized and vilified.

 

[longtime lurker]

 

[Saintcd]

So just to be clear, now that things didn’t work out, we are no longer reminding people as in your avatar to keep calm nor celebrating the ease of which we Make it Happen every year, and instead we are now vilifying for going down that previous road and now intentionally being less aggressive while rolling it back?

Hindsight really is 20/20, ain’t it?

No disrespect intended here, just pointing out to you and others how easy it becomes to point the finger at EVERYTHING when things aren’t going well, even the things we ourselves thought were correct paths. This “problem” isn’t significantly different than before, we can still “Make it Happen,” but we are taking steps to ease it back to a certain mean, and that action, and the previous actions that led us down this road that were celebrated at the time, are now being weaponized and vilified.

Some of us always thought it was dumb to “make it happen” every season. The bill always come due, but others did think he was a genius. I think the issue for some is keeping it going for so long after the all in with Drew seasons. It really should have ended after the 2018 season, but it was pushed further into the abyss with the Covid cap.

At this point the saints are the people in the tax commercials that owe $$ needing to hire someone to negotiate a reduction in cap. Just pay the money and move on. They made the bed and the fans are stuck laying in it.

 

[St. Geezy]

Some of us always thought it was dumb to “make it happen” every season. The bill always come due, but others did think he was a genius. I think the issue for some is keeping it going for so long after the all in with Drew seasons. It really should have ended after the 2018 season, but it was pushed further into the abyss with the Covid cap.

At this point the saints are the people in the tax commercials that owe $$ needing to hire someone to negotiate a reduction in cap. Just pay the money and move on. They made the bed and the fans are stuck laying in it.

What “bill” has come due? All we have done is invest in the present with future dollars, and now, after investing wrong on a big ticket item along with drafting poorly, we are rolling it back. This isn’t much different than what teams with “healthy”’caps do when they invest poorly.

Bottom line is we have sucked at player evaluation at the college scouting level especially, and have had absurd bad luck with injuries with the guys that actually ARE good.

There is this wild misconception that our depth is a problem because of our cap, but our financial commitment at a depth level are on par with league average; we just have spent on the wrong people, had a couple of OL retire, drafted the wrong people, and have too much depth on the field all at once; no team survives that no matter what their financial ledger style is.

 

[Clintonrebel]

For forever, you always had two bad teams in that division, which helps with record. Kinda like the Patriots record all those years. I mean, the Patriots were good for many years, but they rarely had to win playoff games on the road.

 

[Clintonrebel]

What “bill” has come due? All we have done is invest in the present with future dollars, and now, after investing wrong on a big ticket item along with drafting poorly, we are rolling it back. This isn’t much different than what teams with “healthy”’caps do when they invest poorly.

Bottom line is we have sucked at player evaluation at the college scouting level especially, and have had absurd bad luck with injuries with the guys that actually ARE good.

There is this wild misconception that our depth is a problem because of our cap, but our financial commitment at a depth level are on par with league average; we just have spent on the wrong people, had a couple of OL retire, drafted the wrong people, and have too much depth on the field all at once; no team survives that no matter what their financial ledger style is.

Great analogy. As if we paid like-new prices for an old yellow refrigerator and put it on a credit card.

 

[VikesFan2017]

Good question.

I think a couple factors have played out, but it's not always consistent.

We had a couple decent QB's. Tarkenton, Tommy Kramer/Wade Wilson, then Kirk.
We've had a lot of years with bad QB play, but in those years we had Adrian Peterson and generally sound defenses.

I think our coaches have generally been good in choosing a style of football and staying consistent in that.
I think there have been very few years we've had "great" teams. Usually due to QB not being a true top notch guy or defense not being dominating. These things crack in the playoffs. (Keenum in 2017. Defense in 2009. Defense in 1998. Defense in 2000).

Our two truly great teams were 1998 and 2009.
The 1998 defense was never very good but was covered up because we forced teams to go one dimensional against us with early leads.
The 2009 team was probably the soundest all around.
Our 1987 team was a great defense, but okay offense.

We do seem to pivot off stars when it's time.
Adrian Peterson. Randy Moss. Culpepper. Kirk Cousins. Stefon Diggs.

 

[St. Geezy]

Good question.

I think a couple factors have played out, but it's not always consistent.

We had a couple decent QB's. Tarkenton, Tommy Kramer/Wade Wilson, then Kirk.
We've had a lot of years with bad QB play, but in those years we had Adrian Peterson and generally sound defenses.

I think our coaches have generally been good in choosing a style of football and staying consistent in that.
I think there have been very few years we've had "great" teams. Usually due to QB not being a true top notch guy or defense not being dominating. These things crack in the playoffs. (Keenum in 2017. Defense in 2009. Defense in 1998. Defense in 2000).

Our two truly great teams were 1998 and 2009.
The 1998 defense was never very good but was covered up because we forced teams to go one dimensional against us with early leads.
The 2009 team was probably the soundest all around.
Our 1987 team was a great defense, but okay offense.

We do seem to pivot off stars when it's time.
Adrian Peterson. Randy Moss. Culpepper. Kirk Cousins. Stefon Diggs.

This is some great insight, and the OP thread topic as a whole is great.

It really is fascinating. Even knowing they don’t have a SB trophy, the Vikings do always seem to be consistently good every year. They have a formula, and also adjust/transition well.

This is probably a function and indication of great/sound ownership more than anything.

 

[St.Dan]

for all the talk of rebuilding and starting over, the Minnesota Vikings have NEVER had more than two losing seasons in a row. They always seem competitive no matter who is behind center and seem to bounce back from bad years the very next season. What do they do that works so well? Why do other teams (like us) just get stuck in a rut for half a decade or more? Granted, they have never held a Lombardi either.

Well, to be super-technical here, the franchise started off with three straight losing seasons from 1961 through '63. But indeed, we in the Who Dat Nation lead them 1-0 for pro football's ultimate prize

 

[Vision]

for all the talk of rebuilding and starting over, the Minnesota Vikings have NEVER had more than two losing seasons in a row. They always seem competitive no matter who is behind center and seem to bounce back from bad years the very next season. What do they do that works so well? Why do other teams (like us) just get stuck in a rut for half a decade or more? Granted, they have never held a Lombardi either.

Oline and def been pretty above average mostly.

 

[BreesusSaves]

Good question.

I think a couple factors have played out, but it's not always consistent.

We had a couple decent QB's. Tarkenton, Tommy Kramer/Wade Wilson, then Kirk.
We've had a lot of years with bad QB play, but in those years we had Adrian Peterson and generally sound defenses.

I think our coaches have generally been good in choosing a style of football and staying consistent in that.
I think there have been very few years we've had "great" teams. Usually due to QB not being a true top notch guy or defense not being dominating. These things crack in the playoffs. (Keenum in 2017. Defense in 2009. Defense in 1998. Defense in 2000).

Our two truly great teams were 1998 and 2009.
The 1998 defense was never very good but was covered up because we forced teams to go one dimensional against us with early leads.
The 2009 team was probably the soundest all around.
Our 1987 team was a great defense, but okay offense.

We do seem to pivot off stars when it's time.
Adrian Peterson. Randy Moss. Culpepper. Kirk Cousins. Stefon Diggs.

Add in 49 draft picks over the last 5 seasons means a constant supply of cheap starters and quality depth, and the Vikings are projected to have more than $63.5m in effective cap space in 2025.

 

[Saint KayBee]

There’s a multi-part series by Jon Bois that addresses their long-term success.

 

[St.Dan]

Good question.

I think a couple factors have played out, but it's not always consistent.

We had a couple decent QB's. Tarkenton, Tommy Kramer/Wade Wilson, then Kirk.
We've had a lot of years with bad QB play, but in those years we had Adrian Peterson and generally sound defenses.

I think our coaches have generally been good in choosing a style of football and staying consistent in that.
I think there have been very few years we've had "great" teams. Usually due to QB not being a true top notch guy or defense not being dominating. These things crack in the playoffs. (Keenum in 2017. Defense in 2009. Defense in 1998. Defense in 2000).

Our two truly great teams were 1998 and 2009.
The 1998 defense was never very good but was covered up because we forced teams to go one dimensional against us with early leads.
The 2009 team was probably the soundest all around.
Our 1987 team was a great defense, but okay offense.

We do seem to pivot off stars when it's time.
Adrian Peterson. Randy Moss. Culpepper. Kirk Cousins. Stefon Diggs.

We in the Who Dat Nation have some of our fandom lineage through that 1987 team, as they spanked us in the wild card round in our first-ever playoff game. Then, the following week, they upset the 49ers in Candlestick.

I'd say that 1987 offense was a bit better than just "okay" for its time, with better overall team speed on both sides of the ball than Mora's bunch that year. The Vikes lost all three replacement games (games played by the "scabs" while the regular players were on strike), which skewed that final record downward. The "regular" Vikes were 8-4 and likely would've seriously challenged that era's Bears for the division title had it not been for the strike. And I'd venture to say that from '87 through '89, Anthony Carter was every bit Jerry Rice's equal as an elite receiver.

If memory serves, y'all were a dropped pass by Darrin Nelson inside the 1-yard line in the NFC title game vs. the Redskins from having a fresh set of downs with about 30 seconds to play?