Before Sunday’s Cardinals game I made a deal with wife.
She would take our little daughter to her Sunday learn-to-skate practice, which started at 11 a.m. Mountain Standard Time.
Once that was over and she had some lunch, I would stop watching the Vikings game, record the rest of it and take our daughter to the pool for an afternoon swim.
As it turns out, I was happy to do that today. Because when I left for swimming, there was 12:40 left in the game and the Vikings were behind 24-10. And I was pretty confident there would be no need to watch the final 12:40 of the game I had recorded when I got home – the Vikings were going down.
I even had my post-game write-up sketched out in my head.
I was going to write that I hoped Zygi Wilf didn’t fire Brad Childress after the game, but instead waited until the end of the season to do it.
My “logic” was I figured the train wreck that has been the Vikings 2010 season had a better chance of continuing if Childress stayed on as the conductor.
Each loss would ensure the Vikings got higher and higher draft picks in every round of the 2010 draft, improving their chances of landing players who could be franchise cornerstones in the future – maybe even allowing them to select a guy like Jake Locker or Andrew Luck, hotshot college quarterbacks who could potentially solve the Vikings issues at this position in the long-term.
Of course, when I got home from swimming and learned the Vikings had pulled off a 27-24 comeback win in overtime, I had to re-think the theme of my post-game rant.
Which brings me back to the headline of this post.
In the long run, was this win a good thing for the Vikings?
Yes, these kinds of comeback wins feel good. But at 3-5, the Vikings probably still have to go 7-1 or 6-2 to have a realistic shot at making the playoffs.
And if they do manage such a run and make the playoffs, what happens then?
For three-plus quarters against the Cardinals, I didn’t see anything that suggests the Vikings are the kind of team that can challenge for a Super Bowl.
So what we’re looking at is a one-and-done playoff scenario with this team. But it’s a one-and-done that would likely mean Childress sticks around for another year, the Vikings lose out on a chance to draft a franchise quarterback, and the team tries to make it work in 2011 with Tarvaris Jackson or Michael Vick or some other 30-something QB with Childress pulling the strings.
Is that a development that would be good for the Vikings in the long run? I say no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Absolutely correct, in my humble opinion. We were discussing the game today in the office and I commented that this win was one of the worst things that could have happened for the Vikings. It delays the inevitable and resurrects some last sparks of hope that may still glimmer in the heart's of the decision makers. Instead, they need cold and dark hearts to just pull the trigger and put this team out of its current misery.
Chris:
It's been pointed out elsewhere that the Vikings have gone on some winning binges under Childress the past three seasons.
But this team is mistake-prone and unable to take advantage of other team's mistakes (like the Greenway non-interception). I just can't see them playing solid enough ball to go on any extended run this time.
A 5-11 season would be painful for all of us to watch. But in the long-run, it might be for the best.
Post a Comment