Chilly to get Contract Extension

[mraynrand]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

[ThunderDan]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Other than Minnesota and Cincinnati, who have we played that is good? WE choked the TB game and that's it. Other than that we would be 6-3 and have lost to an 8-1 team twice and a 7-2 team once. The Packers don't control who they play.

[bobblehead]

On the other hand, your argument, of how the teams were put together, is a wonderful example of why some are not overly in love with TTT.

The way the Vikings team is/has been built makes it much more likely that they'll win a title sooner than the Packers will. Even the TT supporters should be able to agree with that. But it's all perspective. It's all about what we as fans want.

To me, winning often is more important than winning now. Whether that means we'll start winning often this year or next year or 3 years from now doesn't matter, as long as it happens. I don't want to win 16 games and a trophy this year with a bunch of veteran/journeyman FA's who, once they leave Green Bay, will take all hope of winning consistently with them. I'd rather win with a younger group of players who will be around long enough to create a dynasty. That's where I'm at. I don't want us to win a ring. I want us to become the next dynasty team in the NFL. Odds are slim, but this is how it's done. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at least we're giving ourselves a chance. That's the argument I'd make in support of TT.

Remember, TT only shops for material. He buys the parts, but he's not the mechanic. Now if only we could get a dynasty-caliber head coach in here to actually build the damn thing...

Great post Gun, I've said several times that I agree with the TT method 100%, but we have to wait and see if he REALLY has such a great eye for talent or if that is a myth. Early on it looked like his plan came together, but the BF saga let the wheels come off, this season MUST finish strong to say he has what it takes. If not you can start questioning any and everything.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Other than Minnesota and Cincinnati, who have we played that is good? WE choked the TB game and that's it. Other than that we would be 6-3 and have lost to an 8-1 team twice and a 7-2 team once. The Packers don't control who they play.

My last line was meant as sarcasm dan, I agree with you. I tend to say you are as good as your record shows at the end of the season....right now we are a winning football team. Talented and undisciplined.

If you read the whole post again I think the sarcasm is evident.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

[mraynrand]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

I see. Kinda like Belichick without Brady.

[bobblehead]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

The Bears are decent?

Decent...not good, middle of the pack...and they kicked Pittsburgs ass.

You must realize that except for the teams they lost to they are undefeated.

I see. Kinda like Belichick without Brady.

Exactly, but I clearly said a bunch of exceptions. I'm making ONE. BB has a long history in the NFL and he never landed a gig except for the abomination in cleveland. He finally did in NE. Did he grow?? I don't know, he is clearly a good coach at this point (not GREAT imo), but if you think that move he made was anything other than arrogant and in any way a good call I think you are crazy.

[Smidgeon]

First of all, putting homerism aside (), I think the Vikings are more talented than the Packers. And furthermore, except for Woodson and Harris on the Packers, the Vikings talent is experienced talent (except for Harvin and maybe Peterson).

Any time you start making an argument and fill it with exceptions you should take a good look at the argument.

After all the packers haven't beaten any decent teams....except the Bears and Cowboys.

Granted, I understand the point you're making about how making exceptions precludes a definitive statement. However, the point I was making was not a definitive statement but instead a trend. The Packers trend towards young, inexperienced talent, and the Vikings trend towards grizzled, experienced talent. The Packers have more young players with a ton of potential that have yet to put it together, and the Vikings have more of the older players who have been putting it together for years.

I was being fair in my assessment to ensure I wasn't glossing over that both teams have exceptions to the trend. For example, Woodson and Harris are the grizzled talent for the Packers who both came from other teams (you could throw Pickett in there too), and Harvin and Peterson are the young talent on the Vikings (although I hedged on Peterson via italics because he's been fulfilling potential since day 1 and he's definitely experienced by now though he's still young-ish for a running back).

When you're making an objective point (ie the Packers have a winning record and thus are what their records says), exceptions are irrelevant. When you're making a subjective point (ie an opinion about talent level), exceptions are not irrelevant, no matter how much you want them to be.

[sheepshead]

look at that, brett favre got another shitty coach a long deal

Mine as well sign him...

[PlantPage55]

Even this year, Chilly has made coaching decisions that are baffling. That team is very talented and consistently overcomes them. They have guys like Pat Williams and Jared Allen, who I hate, but at least their players have to answer to them.

I don't feel like Charles Woodson, Al Harris, or Donald Driver fill that role for us. Not that they aren't wonderful players, whom I love to have on our team, but they don't work their veteran magic in the same way that some of the Viking players do.

[Fritz]

I don't understand. All of you breaking out these intelligent, logical arguments in favor of certain coaches, or certain qualities in coaches, when I've already solved the whole thing but no one will respond.

All that matters is how the coach looks. If Vince Lombardi didn't have that crazy gap in his teeth and those hardcore glasses along with the crewcut, he'd have been a lousy coach.

McCarthy was a better coach in 07 because he didn't look like an overfed smurf. Same with Denny Green - he was a pretty good coach til he got too fat and lost his edge.

Mike Singletary is a good coach because he looks like he'll kill you if you fart wrong. Same with Mike Tomlin and Bill Cowher.

[Smidgeon]

I don't understand. All of you breaking out these intelligent, logical arguments in favor of certain coaches, or certain qualities in coaches, when I've already solved the whole thing but no one will respond.

All that matters is how the coach looks. If Vince Lombardi didn't have that crazy gap in his teeth and those hardcore glasses along with the crewcut, he'd have been a lousy coach.

McCarthy was a better coach in 07 because he didn't look like an overfed smurf. Same with Denny Green - he was a pretty good coach til he got too fat and lost his edge.

Mike Singletary is a good coach because he looks like he'll kill you if you fart wrong. Same with Mike Tomlin and Bill Cowher.

Cowher's chin alone could knock someone silly...

[mngolf19]

As a Viking fan:

I don't think Chilly is great, just avg.

Many Vikes fans don't like him due to arrogance when he started. I think he is learning though. And in all facets of coaching. Still has a ways to go though.

Spielman was not here at beginning of Chilly's tenure and is not the sole decider on talent.

"Grizzlled Vets?" "Successful elsewhere?" "Older players?" Jared Allen was 26 when they got him and wouldn't call him a grizzled vet. Shiancoe, none of the above. Hutch, grizzlled and successful but was in his prime so not older or even old at that point. Same with Winfield. Madieu W. also the same. Leber as well. Pat Williams is really the only one I can think of that would fit all 3 of above.

As far as winning in only the short term. Peterson, Loadholt, Herrera, Sullivan, Harvin, Rice, Edwards, Greenway, Henderson, Griffin, Johnson all with 5 or less years of experience/time in NFL. Shiancoe, Leber, McKinnie, Berrian, Kluwe, K. Williams, M. Williams are early in their primes. Most of the "old" guys play with heavy rotation already. So this window is only short if you feel Favre is holding it open by himself. Won last year without him. And who knows how long he plays if this team can continue on.

Chilly makes some boneheaded calls, that's what makes him avg and keeps any arguements open for his head. But he has built a character team(which he said he would do) and has been trending up in success.

I'll take him over many at this point(including M3). And I'll take their path to building over the TT method too. And if your going to say Chilly wins due to Favre, well that's how M3 got his extension isn't it?

[Scott Campbell]

The window is short if you believe the Vikings won't be in town in a couple of years. I'm in MN this week, and the folks I've asked are dead set against using any public money for a stadium - despite the bandwagon year they're having.

[mngolf19]

The window is short if you believe the Vikings won't be in town in a couple of years. I'm in MN this week, and the folks I've asked are dead set against using any public money for a stadium - despite the bandwagon year they're having.

That's a different window. And what are you doing hanging with the cheap bastards?