All Things 2025 Minnesota Vikings Off-Season Thread

Donate To GopherHole
GopherWeatherGuy said:
If you're 14-3 you should be a Super Bowl contender. They were not close, so if you consider this a great season, you have to consider 2022 a great season because I think they were very similar.

And I'm not here to argue good vs great, but even 10-6 and 11-5 are good regular seasons where they should be able to compete for the title.

You have multiple people in this thread saying the Rams are a better team than the Vikings, and they are, but they were still only 10-7. I wouldn't consider that great, but they can still make a run to the Super Bowl. I'll take that any day over 14-3.
Click to expand...
I don't really consider 2022 to be a "great" season, because they actually gave up more points than they scored, were blown out 3 times and the Defense was so subpar the Coordinator was fired immediately upon conclusion.

It was great fun though, winning all those close games, so including it doesn't bother me in the least.13 Ws, sure...great.

That would mean 5 "great" seasons in the 40+ since Les Steckel was HC. Just saying there's reason for Vikings fans to celebrate 2024 for being beyond "good". They won 14 ballgames with a QB that 2 previous franchises couldn't jettison quick enough.

Sure it ended with a thud and that sucks.

However, on Labor Day I thought their Super Bowl chances were zip, the Lions would have Division locked up before Christmas and if everything broke just right they could fight for the 7 Seed/Wild Card.

It was looking fantastic on New Year's Day...until it was proved they are the Not Ready for Prime Time Players. Maybe next year with this Salary Cap room it'll happen, or they at least get a step closer.
 
Last edited:

GophersInIowa said:
Maybe throw 2000 in there? First round bye and were favorites to beat then Giants in the NFC Championship. Certainly a great opportunity at least.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rule against that, I was thinking just in terms of the Regular season.

2000 they also really sputtered at the end.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
If you're 14-3 you should be a Super Bowl contender. They were not close, so if you consider this a great season, you have to consider 2022 a great season because I think they were very similar.

And I'm not here to argue good vs great, but even 10-6 and 11-5 are good regular seasons where they should be able to compete for the title.

You have multiple people in this thread saying the Rams are a better team than the Vikings, and they are, but they were still only 10-7. I wouldn't consider that great, but they can still make a run to the Super Bowl. I'll take that any day over 14-3.
Click to expand...
2022 was more of a fluke. The defense stunk. They won multiple games they shouldn't have (Buffalo, Washington). This year they were legitimately good on both sides of the ball, and didn't really have any fluke wins. They beat the Packers twice, the Texans and Niners when they were still healthy, at Seattle etc.
 

Bad Gopher said:
This. The notion that the Rams are far and away better than the Vikings is...a curious take. All the qualifying teams have championship potential. Haven't the Packers won it all as a 6 seed? It comes down to how well you play. Some teams play well, and some lay eggs.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone said that the Rams are far and away better than the Vikings, I didn't mean to imply it certainly.

But I do think with all their offensive weapons healthy, Stafford at the reins, a proven SB Champion HC, with 2 decisive wins head-to-head this year, it's not really at all going out on a limb to say that the Rams are indeed better (right now). That's not a "curious" take at all.
 
Last edited:

Ope3 said:
I don't think anyone said that the Rams are far and away better than the Vikings, I didn't mean to imply it certainly.

But I do think with all their offensive weapons healthy, Stafford at the reigns, a proven SB Champion HC, with 2 decisive wins head-to-head this year, it's not really at all going out on a limb to say that the Rams are indeed better (right now). That's not a "curious" take at all.
Click to expand...
Stafford is so much better than Darnold that it wipes out whatever other advantages the Vikings have. The Rams also have a better O-line, better RB etc.
 


howeda7 said:
Stafford is so much better than Darnold that it wipes out whatever other advantages the Vikings have. The Rams also have a better O-line, better RB etc.
Click to expand...
Definitely a healthy Stafford (who was also wisely rested in the Season Finale) gives them an edge. Even their WR corp is pretty close in talent which is saying something.
 

Ope3 said:
I don't really consider 2022 to be a "great" season, because they actually gave up more points than they scored, were blown out 3 times and the Defense was so subpar the Coordinator was fired immediately upon conclusion.

It was great fun though, winning all those close games, so including it doesn't bother me in the least.13 Ws, sure...great.

That would mean 5 "great" seasons in the 40+ since Les Steckel was HC. Just saying there's reason for Vikings fans to celebrate it for being beyond "good". They won 14 ballgames with a QB that 2 previous franchises couldn't jettison quick enough.

Sure it ended with a thud and that sucks.

However, on Labor Day I thought their Super Bowl chances were zip, the Lions would have Division locked up before Christmas and if everything broke just right they could fight for the 7 Seed/Wild Card.

It was looking fantastic on New Year's Day...until it was proved they are the Not Ready for Prime Time Players. Maybe next year with this Salary Cap room it'll happen, or they at least get a step closer.
Click to expand...
1988 was a great team. 11-5 with by far the best point differential in the league. A stretch of like 5 games late in the season where they gave up like 9 points.

Better record than the 49ers, but had to travel because they won their division (the Bears were 12-4). 49ers got hot in the postseason and won it all.

**We would have been the 1 seed easily, but we lost TWICE (out of five total losses) to the 4-12 Packers somehow. Unbelievable and typical at the same time.

1999 was a great season once we switched to George as QB. They just weren't better than the juggernaut Rams. As was said, 2000 wasn't a great team, but had a fantastic chance to make the SB.
 

Ope3 said:
I don't think anyone said that the Rams are far and away better than the Vikings, I didn't mean to imply it certainly.

But I do think with all their offensive weapons healthy, Stafford at the reigns, a proven SB Champion HC, with 2 decisive wins head-to-head this year, it's not really at all going out on a limb to say that the Rams are indeed better (right now). That's not a "curious" take at all.
Click to expand...
It does highlight the importance of QB play. That and line play is what wins championships. It's not a coincidence that a defense's ability to pressure a quarterback has been the linchpin in quite a few Super Bowls I've watched.

If the Vikes are successful in improving both lines in the off season and McCarthy is even competent when the chips are down, there's hope.
 

Bad Gopher said:
It does highlight the importance of QB play. That and line play is what wins championships. It's not a coincidence that a defense's ability to pressure a quarterback has been the linchpin in quite a few Super Bowls I've watched.

If the Vikes are successful in improving both lines in the off season and McCarthy is even competent when the chips are down, there's hope.
Click to expand...
but I don't think you can fix the lines in one offseason. I'd love it if they could.

The interior of the defensive and offensive lines has been bad for years.
 



howeda7 said:
That's actually why I don't want him back. This was as healthy as he's ever been and he still missed large chunks of multiple games. Get someone younger/faster and get a decent screen game going.
Click to expand...
I’d bring him back as the #2 back and find a lead back in the draft or FA
 

WilliamsArenaGuy said:
1988 was a great team. 11-5 with by far the best point differential in the league. A stretch of like 5 games late in the season where they gave up like 9 points.

Better record than the 49ers, but had to travel because they won their division (the Bears were 12-4). 49ers got hot in the postseason and won it all.

**We would have been the 1 seed easily, but we lost TWICE (out of five total losses) to the 4-12 Packers somehow. Unbelievable and typical at the same time.

1999 was a great season once we switched to George as QB. They just weren't better than the juggernaut Rams. As was said, 2000 wasn't a great team, but had a fantastic chance to make the SB.
Click to expand...
1988 was a great team, but that was not a "great" Regular Season for the reason you laid out...they got swept by the Packers.

Getting beat twice by the Cheeseheads is an automatic disqualifier. With that Green Bay team finishing 4-12 it's just flat out embarrassing. The 2nd loss meant the Bears finale was moot in terms of winning the NFC Central.

Also painful was in October losing to the 49ers in Candlestick with backup QB Steve Young instead of Montana. Young wasn't known as what became the future HoFer at the time, but rather a USFL Bonus Baby and a Bucs Draft Bust. His epic run against the Vikings Defense was also scarring, and provided NFL Films with an iconic piece of footage.

5 Ls just doesn't feel "great" in my book. Textbook "good".

1999, sure it was a great run with George slinging it but I can't just discount the 2-4 start under Cunningham coming off his All Pro campaign the previous season. Might have been closer to "great" if they had beat the Bucs at their place on a December Monday Night which could have earned them the Division crown (and a Bye).

2000 Vikings also got swept by the Packers. Not "great".
 
Last edited:

I still say keep Jones and spend money and the few draft picks on the lines and DB. I would like to see a super quick small back like KC seems to always deploy. Maybe you can find one as a UDFA.
 




TNGophfan said:
I still say keep Jones and spend money and the few draft picks on the lines and DB. I would like to see a super quick small back like KC seems to always deploy. Maybe you can find one as a UDFA.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that basically what Jones already is? I’m happy to have Jones back if they work it out financially, but they need a bigger back to give the ball to near the goal line which was a big problem this season.
 

GFBfan said:
I’d bring him back as the #2 back and find a lead back in the draft or FA
Click to expand...
I doubt he wants to be a second 🍌 ; already heard mutterings thatDenver is interested u him as their lead back.

Coming off career highs in carries, rushing and scrimmage yards, in addition to to 4.5 yards per carry, it would be shocking if he cannot find a team where’s he’s numero uno.
 

Ope3 said:
1988 was a great team, but that was not a "great" Regular Season for the reason you laid out...they got swept by the Packers.

Getting beat twice by the Cheeseheads is an automatic disqualifier. With that Green Bay team finishing 4-12 it's just flat out embarrassing. The 2nd loss meant the Bears finale was moot in terms of winning the NFC Central.

Also painful was in October losing to the 49ers in Candlestick with backup QB Steve Young instead of Montana. Young wasn't known as what became the future HoFer at the time, but rather a USFL Bonus Baby and a Bucs Draft Bust. His epic run against the Vikings Defense was also scarring, and provided NFL Films with an iconic piece of footage.

5 Ls just doesn't feel "great" in my book. Textbook "good".

1999, sure it was a great run with George slinging it but I can't just discount the 2-4 start under Cunningham coming off his All Pro campaign the previous season. Might have been closer to "great" if they had beat the Bucs at their place on a December Monday Night which could have earned them the Division crown (and a Bye).

2000 Vikings also got swept by the Packers. Not "great".
Click to expand...
Not much to disagree with, but this stretch after the godforsaken Steve Young run was one of the most dominant stretches I've seen in my lifetime. They lost the next game to GB 18-6. How does that happen???

1737069176566.png
 

WilliamsArenaGuy said:
Not much to disagree with, but this stretch after the godforsaken Steve Young run was one of the most dominant stretches I've seen in my lifetime. They lost the next game to GB 18-6. How does that happen???

View attachment 35391
Click to expand...
All 5 of those games were on artificial turf. Only the Cowboys game was outside and they were about get Tom Laundry fired.

The Green Bay game was played outdoors, on grass/frozen tundra and in frigid temps (High 15 / Low -1). The Burns era Vikings seemed to struggle whenever they were forced outside.

The script had flipped from the Grant teams playing at the Met.

About the only exception I can recall was the beat down they gave the 49ers the year prior in the Candlestick muck.
 

I haven't heard this point much (probably because it's not a good one), so thought I'd throw it out at least and see if anyone bites (or flames it, have at it).

We were supposed to play Tampa. That was our game, by all rights. The Rams were better than Tampa and should have been #3, playing Washington the #6. We should've gotten to play #4 Tampa, as the #5 seed.

I think we could have won at Tampa.

The Rams (quite purposefully) did two things with one stone:
- rested their starters an extra week, whereas the Vikings had to do the opposite and paid dearly for not winning (while winner Detroit also got to rest)
- manipulated the seeds so that they play the Vikings instead of Washington.

It's not like the Rams cheated the rules, I'm not saying they did or that there should be some kind of punishment for them.


Would there be any support for a really convoluted, really niche rule saying something like: "if you have a division winning seed wrapped up before the last week of the season, and a loss would not change you winning the division, then you cannot drop a seed with a loss in the last week of the season" ?
 

kg21 said:
They will pick 24th in the first round.

We don't really have any other draft. That f------g sucks. Not feeling good about giving up all that we did for Dallas Turner.
Click to expand...
I know hindsight is 20/20, as it always is.

But damn ... how about Jared Verse ? Sure seems like he would've done well here too?


The flip side is saying "that's because Dallas had a hard time picking up Flores' complicated defense and more importantly because Van Ginkle and Grenard had such awesome years, he couldn't get on the field".

Do you buy that, or do you think he was a disappointment considering we could've taken Verse?
 

Slim Tubby said:
Well...we now have roughly $35-40M more to spend in 2025 free agency than we did Monday morning.

I can't think of another player in the NFL that earned their contract more than Sam did this season. It was a great run with a predictably disappointing finish.

Get it done again this offseason, Kwesi.
Click to expand...
Teams always are in search of QB's and this year's draft class supposedly isn't very good.

Who's to say that both Darnold and Dan Jones won't get scooped up by teams willing to pay in the $25-30M range, desperate for some kind of reasonable decent vet QB?


You can't roll out there with just Mullens and McCarthy. That is is asking for disaster. That's how you end up with Justin Fields, if things go south and McCarthy has a rookie (defacto) implosion.

I'm not saying that you are saying we should. I'm just voicing that we should not do that!
 

WilliamsArenaGuy said:
Not much to disagree with, but this stretch after the godforsaken Steve Young run was one of the most dominant stretches I've seen in my lifetime. They lost the next game to GB 18-6. How does that happen???

View attachment 35391
Click to expand...
I did some further research. At Lambeau Game Time Temp +6. Wind chill -7.

www.pro-football-reference.com

Minnesota Vikings at Green Bay Packers - December 11th, 1988 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Minnesota Vikings 6 at Green Bay Packers 18 on December 11th, 1988 - Full team and player stats and box score
www.pro-football-reference.com www.pro-football-reference.com

It was as dominating stretch defensively as I have seen heading into that one.
 

GopherGrit said:
Teams always are in search of QB's and this year's draft class supposedly isn't very good.

Who's to say that both Darnold and Dan Jones won't get scooped up by teams willing to pay in the $25-30M range, desperate for some kind of reasonable decent vet QB?


You can't roll out there with just Mullens and McCarthy. That is is asking for disaster. That's how you end up with Justin Fields, if things go south and McCarthy has a rookie (defacto) implosion.

I'm not saying that you are saying we should. I'm just voicing that we should not do that!
Click to expand...
I'd feel better about letting Darnold walk if JJM was healthy and practiced with the team all year.

As it is, I'd probably still rather spend that money on OG's Tre Smith and Kevin Zeitler and hope that our initial evaluation of JJM being a franchise QB proves true.

We may lose more games next year while JJM develops but Darnold has taken us as far as he can IMO.
 

Slim Tubby said:
I'd feel better about letting Darnold walk if JJM was healthy and practiced with the team all year.

As it is, I'd probably still rather spend that money on OG's Tre Smith and Kevin Zeitler and hope that our initial evaluation of JJM being a franchise QB proves true.

We may lose more games next year while JJM develops but Darnold has taken us as far as he can IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't care either way, honestly. I trust KOC and KAM to make the right call; nobody has more information on both QBs than the people in that building. The Vikings have leverage with Darnold if they want to keep him at an extremely reasonable number. Small sample size, but we also don't know what they think after having Jones in the building for a few months, as far as a pairing with JJM

One thing is for sure; I'm almost certain the IOL is going to be improved quite a bit next year and with the other weapons, any QB they put back there is likely to have a very successful season.

A little bit of humorist revisionist history; if you would have said 14 days ago that the Vikings could get Darnold at a number in the high $20M's, or anywhere near $30M/yr, a LOT of Vikings fans would have said Hell Yeah.
 


Gophers1992 said:
This actually isn't really a shameful stat at all. There's a reason this list is littered with successful franchises.
Click to expand...
Shameful, no. Bittersweet, definitely.

At least Viking fans get to watch meaningful football through New Years Day more often than not as opposed to having it all wrapped up by Christmas.
 

Gophers1992 said:
This actually isn't really a shameful stat at all. There's a reason this list is littered with successful franchises.
Click to expand...

It’s not shameful, but all of those franchises have multiple Super Bowl wins in the 40 years I’ve been on this planet. The Vikings haven’t even been to one over the same time period. That is the shameful part.
 

Ogee Ogilthorpe said:
One thing is for sure; I'm almost certain the IOL is going to be improved quite a bit next year
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 

Interestingly enough, as I'm sitting here thinking about all the discussion here lately that Darnold has cost himself $Millions with these last two games...

I have to believe that the Vikings are now in a much stronger bargaining position with KOC and his new contract after the Vikings performance in these last two big games, and the Vikings losing the only two playoff games under KOC, games in which they were favored in both. KOC very likely lost a few bucks in these last few weeks.
 


Saw this depressing tidbit in an article in The Athletic regarding our offseason retooling -

The Detroit Lions they have selected more than 10 starters through the draft in the last four years, including seven Pro Bowlers.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom