After a 1-3 start to the 2008 NFL season, the Minnesota Vikings looked rudderless, armed with only two constants, a strong defense and an impotent offense. Worse yet, the team seemed to be mirroring, in play and in results, the performance of previous Brad Childress-coached Vikings' teams, holding on defense, genuflecting on offense, and losing in streaks.
With victories in 4 of their last five games, however, the Vikings have moved to 5-4, tied atop the NFC North with the Chicago Bears. Pessimists will look at the current winning streak and point to a similar streak last season after a similarly woeful start. The difference between this year and last year, however, is the difference between night and day.
In 2007, after beginning the season1-3 then 3-6, the Vikings temporary righted their record, winning five successive games to forge ahead to an 8-6 record. The 2007 winning streak was built on the back of solid, sometimes absurd defense, mostly suspect opposition, and the running of Adrian Peterson. Ultimately, it collapsed under the weight of its own expectations.
This year, the Vikings have rebounded from another miserable start on the strength not only of the team's defense, but also on the strength of offensive players other than Peterson. Nowhere was this more evident than in the first half of Sunday's 28-27 victory over the Green Bay Packers. In a game in which the defense stifled the Packers' offense, the Vikings countered the Packers in the first half by incorporating Bobby Wade, Visanthe Shiancoe, Jim Kleinsasser, Chester Taylor, and Gus Frerotte into the offense.
While the Vikings reverted to a conservative, predictable offense for portions of the second half, their first-half use of players paid dividends in the game-winning drive. That drive, a drive that road the success of Peterson roughing up the Packers' secondary, was made possible by the Vikings' first-half display of a professional offense. Without that display, the Packers would have committed to stopping Peterson and Frerotte might have thrown the fourth interception of what clearly was his worst day at the helm of the Vikings' offense.
Instead, the Packers respected the pass and hoped to match up against the run. The Vikings did their best to keep the Packers honest on the final drive, using Peterson in a manner that Childress repeatedly has contended the back is not suited to be used, as a receiver across the middle. The Vikings' plan worked, the Packers' failed.
The Vikings' victory on Sunday showed two things. It demonstrated that, despite the loss of a key defensive player, an offensive line that continues to play without a right tackle, and a special teams unit that cannot play an entire game, the team has sufficient talent to play with some of the better teams in the league. It also demonstrated that the Vikings can play some offense and that they can do so by incorporating all of their offensive players in a fashion that highlights the team's most talented offensive player.
The revelations might not only suffice to make the Vikings competitive in a weak NFC North, but might also make them competitive in the NFL in a season in which there are no dominant teams. That might not only make this a good season for the Vikings, but also a good one for a heretofore justifiably beleaguered head coach who is adding some on-field performance to his off-field effort to ingratiate himself to the fan base.
Up Next: Some Numbers. Plus, More on the Minnesota Amendment.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Passage of Amendment Paves Way for Public Financing of Vikings' Stadium
On Tuesday, Minnesota voters passed a ballot initiative amending the Minnesota Constitution to include a provision whereby three-eighths of a cent will be imposed on in-state transactions subject to the Minnesota sales tax. The amendment was sold as a model for ensuring Minnesotans clean drinking water, sustainable wildlife, and a legacy of hunting and fishing for generations to come. And it offered a provision that allowed a portion of the revenue generated from the tax to be invested in Minnesota's "cultural heritage."
While far too little attention was paid to the ramifications of using a state constitution to secure tax revenue--the consequences of which residents of California now are having to come to terms with after several years of using their constitution in similar, though far broader measure--virtually no attention, if any, has been given to the language of the Amendment and what that language portends for a possible Vikings' stadium funded by taxpayer dollars.
As a word of caution, if you are among the growing numbers of sports fans who look to the numerous privately funded sports stadiums around the United States and abroad as a model for building new stadiums, stop reading here lest you risk having your head explode. Others should giddily read on.
As noted, the new Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution allows use of a portion of the revenue raised under the Amendment to fund things associated with Minnesota's "cultural heritage." Nowhere in the Amendment is "cultural heritage" defined, however, leaving for state legislators the authority to define the term.
Under the Amendment, Minnesota legislators will be permitted to fund a corn dog stand on Nicollet Mall, an ice-sculpture contest in Baudette, a lutefisk plant in Sleepy Eye, or a wild rice quilting club in Detroit Lakes, if they so choose. And if the revenue generated from the newest Minnesota Amendment can be used to fund those enterprises, it surely can be used to fund the construction of a new football stadium for the Minnesota Vikings with the simple logic, used by other professional sports teams to keep team names and paraphernalia in state when a team has bolted for greener pastures, that the local teams has become part of the cultural fabric of the state.
The Vikings' most recent stadium proposal calls for the construction of a $1 billion stadium, with $750 million in public contributions. The tax generated under the new Minnesota Amendment is expected to be nearly $300 million per year. Of that amount, 19.75% will be available to spend on "arts and cultural heritage" projects--approximately $60 million per year. That's more than enough to fund even the Vikings' grandiose stadium plan. A fact that, along with the dearth of other public revenue streams for such an undertaking, makes the revenue generated from the new Amendment a highly likely source for stadium funding.
If you're a "build a stadium without reserve" fan, this Amendment looks like the one solid lead for gaining public funding for a new Vikings' stadium in the next few years. If you prefer legislative formalities for debating public expenditures on such ventures, well, you were warned to stop reading long ago.
Up Next: Must Win Time for Vikings.
While far too little attention was paid to the ramifications of using a state constitution to secure tax revenue--the consequences of which residents of California now are having to come to terms with after several years of using their constitution in similar, though far broader measure--virtually no attention, if any, has been given to the language of the Amendment and what that language portends for a possible Vikings' stadium funded by taxpayer dollars.
As a word of caution, if you are among the growing numbers of sports fans who look to the numerous privately funded sports stadiums around the United States and abroad as a model for building new stadiums, stop reading here lest you risk having your head explode. Others should giddily read on.
As noted, the new Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution allows use of a portion of the revenue raised under the Amendment to fund things associated with Minnesota's "cultural heritage." Nowhere in the Amendment is "cultural heritage" defined, however, leaving for state legislators the authority to define the term.
Under the Amendment, Minnesota legislators will be permitted to fund a corn dog stand on Nicollet Mall, an ice-sculpture contest in Baudette, a lutefisk plant in Sleepy Eye, or a wild rice quilting club in Detroit Lakes, if they so choose. And if the revenue generated from the newest Minnesota Amendment can be used to fund those enterprises, it surely can be used to fund the construction of a new football stadium for the Minnesota Vikings with the simple logic, used by other professional sports teams to keep team names and paraphernalia in state when a team has bolted for greener pastures, that the local teams has become part of the cultural fabric of the state.
The Vikings' most recent stadium proposal calls for the construction of a $1 billion stadium, with $750 million in public contributions. The tax generated under the new Minnesota Amendment is expected to be nearly $300 million per year. Of that amount, 19.75% will be available to spend on "arts and cultural heritage" projects--approximately $60 million per year. That's more than enough to fund even the Vikings' grandiose stadium plan. A fact that, along with the dearth of other public revenue streams for such an undertaking, makes the revenue generated from the new Amendment a highly likely source for stadium funding.
If you're a "build a stadium without reserve" fan, this Amendment looks like the one solid lead for gaining public funding for a new Vikings' stadium in the next few years. If you prefer legislative formalities for debating public expenditures on such ventures, well, you were warned to stop reading long ago.
Up Next: Must Win Time for Vikings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)