Tom Powers will be rooting against the Vikings

Antoine Winfield is one of my favorite Vikings: I don’t think he’s doing anything wrong by skipping voluntary workouts, and as of yet his expressions of discontent about the offense haven’t verged toward being a bad teammate.

But when I saw the Pioneer Press headline “Note to Winfield: Right on, Antoine!,” I just knew Tom Powers was going to use it as another opportunity to gleeful rip Brad Childress and the Viking offense.

Hey, any objective observer would conclude that the 2006 Viking offense was poor. I think it was a personnel problem more than a coaching problem (and so it's valid to wonder if the Vikes have done enough to upgrade that personnel), but there’s validity to criticism of Childress. But I’m a little disturbed by the glee and vitriol with which Tom Powers enjoys criticizing Childress and the offense. What gives? Is he that miserable watching the games that he just has to take out his quasi-witty aggression against Childress? An objective observer would note the Viking offense was bad; an openly hostile observer will take mean-spirited pleasure in doing so.

Among the lowlights, Powers writes:

“The Vikings' offense was horrible last season. Other than drafting Adrian Peterson and his clavicle, the team hasn't done much of anything to improve it.”

It’s true that the Vikings’ offense was horrible last season. But Powers can’t even bring up main thing the Vikes have done to improve that offense without bringing negativity, too (“Adrian Peterson and his clavicle”). And the Vikings have brought in a vast quantity of WRs to try improve, but Powers qualifies his statement that the team "hasn't done much of anything" to improve" (emphasis mine). Qualifiers make it less likely you'll be wrong.

“I'm puzzled by some of the reaction to Winfield's comments, however. A good chunk of people appear to be taking the attitude that, hey, if he doesn't like it here, let him go someplace else…. But that's exactly what Vikings fans don't want. The guy is too good. They need him here.”

The sure sign of a lousy columnist is when he talks about what “a good chuck of people appear” to be saying. For all we know, Powers is making up this reaction; more likely this "good chunk of people" does exist, but even a good chunk can still be a small minority of fans. I know I don‘t think Winfield should be let go. There’s no question Winfield is a very good player that can help the team; Powers isn’t being unique, insightful, or contrarian to say so.

(note: in my previous post, I talked vaguely about what I’ve heard Viking fans talking about; I did so out of a desire not to call out particular Viking fans or bloggers).

"he is violating the cardinal rule of the Brad Childress regime: Thou shalt not criticize the organization."

Yes, we know: Childress is an insecure tyrant laying down God-like commandments. Har Har.

“You can argue--and I'm sure the Vikings' brass will--that with a year of experience, a year of familiarization, the offense should be somewhat improved. But somewhat improved won't make much difference with that group. It's like a fellow going around with a feather duster, trying to clean up after a nuclear attack. It's just not going to cut it.”

Look, if you predict bad things for a sports sports team, most of the time you are going to be right. As A. E. Housman writes,

Therefore, since the world has still
Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure
Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure,
I’d face it as a wise man would,
And train for ill and not for good.

When Tom Powers predicts bad things for the Vikings, he is most likely going to be right. He’s simply making the best wager. And Tom Powers, if nothing else, wants to be right. And so, since he’s predicted bad things for the Vikings, he’s rooting for those bad things to happen. He wants the Vikings to do poorly because he has predicted the Vikings will be bad. He doesn’t want to be proven wrong; he doesn’t want the organization to be right that “with a year of experience, a year of familiarization, the offense should be somewhat improved.” That would mean he’d be wrong, and he doesn’t want that (besides, it's easy to create a hypothetical argument and argue against it. In Powers' hypothetical argument, the Vikings will only be "somewhat improved," and he says that won't be enough. The hypothetical argument could claim the offense will be more than merely "somewhat improved," but since Powers is making up the hypothetical argument, he can make it say whatever it is he'd most like to argue against). He wants the Viking offense to be bad so that the predictions he's been making (since at least last preseason) can be right, and he can look smart.

Just know that, Viking fans. If you want to read Tom Powers, you may as well go read Packer blogs, too. If you want to read the commentary of somebody that is openly rooting against your team, that’s fine. Doing so might give help balance your perspective. But don’t be mistaken: Tom Powers doesn’t want the Vikings to win.