The Vikings, 2009 and consistency

Back when Mike Tice coached the Vikings, the team was known for fast starts and late season collapses – like the 2003 season, when the Vikes started out 6-0, then lost four straight and seven of its last 10 to finish out of the playoffs. Or like 2004, when the Vikes started 5-1, then lost three straight and four of its last five games to finish 8-8.

When the Vikings hired Brad Childress to replace Tice in 2006, I hoped Chilly would make the Vikings a more consistent team and one less prone to dramatic spikes in performance.

But it turns out Childress’ Viking teams have been just as streaky as Tice’s boys ever were. In 2006, the squad started out 4-2 but would lose four straight games and its final three. In 2007, the Vikes lost five of their first seven, won five in a row but lost their final two games. In 2008, Minnesota lost three of its first four, but also won four in a row and seven of its final nine.

If there’s something I’d like to see from the Vikings in 2009 (besides a Super Bowl victory), it’s a little more consistency. No more extended losing streaks that force the team to win multiple games in a row to save the season – as the Vikings have had to do the past two years. I want less thrills and spills in 2009 and more 2-1 and 3-1 stretches. I guess I’m looking for the Vikings to have a regular season like the Atlanta Falcons had last year. The Falcons went 11-5 in 2008, but they never won more than three games in a row. Then again, they didn’t have to because their longest losing streak was one.

I just don’t know if the Vikings will have it in them. With the quarterback situation being what it is and the schedule being what it is, it looks like we could be in for another streaky season. The Vikings could very well start the season 5-0. But then they have a three-game stretch after that (Baltimore, at Pittsburgh, at Green Bay) where they could lose all three games. The next two games after that look very winnable, but five of their final six games could be very tough. Why does it always have to be so hard?

Some final draft thoughts
Wes Bunting has been kicking some ass with his draft coverage at the National Football Post this winter. And this week he’s broken down potential draftees into 10 tiers. This is only one man’s opinion, but when the Vikings make their picks on Saturday and Sunday, I’ll be consulting this list to see if they picked any players a little earlier or a little later than Bunting’s tiers would suggest.

Bunting also wrote about whom he thinks will be some of the studs and duds of the 2009 draft. Of wide receiver prospect Darrius Heyward-Bey – who some mock drafts have going to the Vikings – Bunting writes: “I see a lot of Troy Williamson and Ashley Lelie in him.”

I’m now terrified that Heyward-Bey will drop to pick #22 and the Vikings will draft him.

On the subject of wide receiver prospects whose draft stock might be dropping, the Vikings are doing their best to appear seriously interested in Florida problem child Percy Harvin.

I can’t see it happening with the questions surrounding Harvin’s character and the failed drug test at the combine. But the Vikings did trade for Jared Allen, who has had his problems. A few words of caution to the Vikings though – when was the last time a wide receiver from Florida amounted to anything? Cris Collinsworth in the early 80s?

I’m now terrified that Harvin will also be available at pick #22 and the Vikings will draft him.

And as much as I follow the constant coverage of the draft and the scrutinizing of the potential draftees, it has taken some of the joy out of the event for me. I find I don’t look forward to the Vikings making their first round pick anymore. Instead, I sort of fear it. I’m more worried they’ve picked the next Troy Williamson than excited they may have found the next Randy Moss.

Before cable TV, ESPN and the Internet, I was usually happily ignorant of most of the players the Vikings would draft. Like in 1985, when I heard they had selected Chris Doleman in the first round. My reaction at the time was, “who the hell is this guy?” I knew nothing about him. And that was probably good because when Doleman struggled in his first two seasons with the Vikings (he had just 3.5 sacks his first two years), I wasn’t overly concerned, figuring he was just slow adjusting to the pro game and that he would come around. Which Doleman did in 1987. He ended up playing in eight Pro Bowls.

It would be very different today. Viking fans like me would know a lot more about Chris Doleman. I imagine we’d have heard he was “long”, had a “great burst off the edge” and that his “upside” was tremendous. But we’d also have heard that he didn’t have a great “motor” and wasn’t great at “shedding blocks” and getting “penetration” against the run. We’d have read about 100 other strengths and weaknesses in Doleman’s game. And if he struggled in his first two years, we wouldn’t have any faith he’d get better, we’d assume he was a bust and write him off.

Sometimes I miss my teenage ignorance.