How much does character matter to you?

I'll put it this way, I love following teams like the World Champion Twins. They weren't necessarily angels, but they were good guys, the type you'd be happy to have a beer with. They don't have to be choir boys, but I'd rather they not be Watson.

Sounds like you'd love to lose with your guys too.

I would have loved to watch them succeed here too, with an emphasis on succeed. I was a fan of both Mediocre Mike and Special Ted early on, but yeah, I'm more a fan of winning and filling trophy cases, and it's pretty clear those 2 weren't going to do much of that. That's when I get off the bandwagon.

They were only "our guys" in the sense that the team we root for brought them in to help us win. Is Teddy still your guy had the Vikings never drafted him? It would be one thing if Teddy was a gun slinger and looked promising before he got injured, or even won something before he got injured, but as far as I'm concerned he didn't do anything more for us than Ponder.

The question is, does winning matter to you, or what matters more to you? Was Favre our guy in 2009? And had he won the Bowl for us would it have been less fulfilling?

I wouldn't want Watson even if he were squeaky clean. He's never won anything. Sure he's more exciting than Cousins as a player, but I don't think he's ever going to fill the trophy case.

As long as guys aren't doing anything illegal off the field, I don't care about their character as long as they're winning on Sunday. Give me a team full of d-bags if they can make me happy on Sunday because I don't have to hang out with them off the field, and I could care less what they do in their private life, again, unless it's illegal. I only signed up to be entertained on Sunday.

They not the only good guys though.. We trying to win ball games u heard. This a business surely like other winning teams we can do both at the same time, find character and guys who have a clue. You are allowed to have both qualities at the same time.

That's the $1m question....

...and I think the answer will largely vary depending on every fan's specific view of "entertainment" of NFL football and or their personal definition of "character". 

There are some fans who watch NFL football and root for their team to win, and don't care who the players are, how big of a jerk they are or what they do in their personal lives, just as long as they win. To them, the answer to that $1m question is, "...uh, why else would I be watching if I didn't care about my team actually winning?" Adrian Peterson arguably did some "questionable" things off the field that caused him to miss nearly the entire 2014 season and some fans could care less about it, as long as he came back and helped the team win.

...and then there are other fans who follow the team for other reasons; one of them being they live in the geographical viewing area and root for the team through thick and thin and grow attached to the players, their involvement in the community and other aspects of the team outside of just what happens on the field on gameday. These fans adore players like Kyle Rudolph and Anthony Barr - drafted by the Vikings and both have somewhat become "entrenched" within the Minnesota community as players beyond what happens on the field. These fans may also have unfavorable views of Adrian Peterson due to things that have occurred off the field, regardless of how well he performed on it. 

I'm probably one of the few people out there who actually still get an actual paper subscription to Sports Illustrated (I never called to cancel the subscription and now I think it's somewhat of a "novelty") and I remember reading a while ago a story about US Soccer Women's National Team star Carli Lloyd, one of the best US Women's Soccer players in my lifetime (an excerpt of that article published in the paper version of SI can be found here: link). The gist of the article was this: Lloyd was a decently talented soccer player, but she wasn't talented enough to ride that talent all the way to stardom, so it would require a big dedication on her part to hone & perfect what talent she had. How much dedication? Basically, her trainer told her she wouldn't have a life outside of soccer training - if that meant not spending time with family, having a social life or celebrating holidays like Thanksgiving or Christmas, she would have to do it. Soccer would have to become the #1 priority in her life to achieve her ultimate goal of playing/starring for the US Women's National Team. 

...and Carli did just that; she dedicated herself to the sport of soccer and climbed to the top of the soccer world, being the star player for the US Women's National Team and winning a World Cup. But what was the cost? She didn't have a life outside of soccer...she has a terribly strained relationship with her family because she spent so much time away from them and was actually kicked out of her house by her father. I'm sure she probably had to sacrifice many relationships/friendships on her soccer stardom journey. 

To some people, she has displayed a high degree of "character" through her dedication and work ethic towards her lifelong goal of soccer stardom, and then to others, she has displayed a low degree of character for pretty much sacrificing her family who initially helped / encouraged her. For Carli, she's couldn't have her "cake and eat it, too" - she could have either soccer stardom and a strained family dynamic or no soccer stardom and potentially a healthy family relationship...and it appears she chose soccer stardom. I'm not stating whether or not I agree with her life decisions, just merely pointing out that people will have different viewpoints on her decision and probably make judgments on her "character" as a result. 

I get the feeling Tom Brady was probably the same way. He had a level of football talent physically and mentally to star in high school and get a scholarship to a bigtime Division 1 program like Michigan and even played really well when he was on the field there. But his talent alone wasn't enough to get him "noticed" as a top NFL QB prospect and slipped all the way to the 6th Rd of the NFL Draft. But he dedicated his life to becoming the best he possibly could be and we all know the level of dedication he went through because it's well chronicled, and like Carli Lloyd, even his dedication has taken a toll on his family. Just last week there was an article (link) put out about relationship issues with his wife on how much dedication he's poured into his career that's gone on for 20+ years while she has had to put her career ambitions on the back burner. While some people would suggest Brady has a high degree of character for his self-discipline/dedication to becoming the best, others would say that he's a bigtime jerk not being there enough for his children and not compromising enough in his primary relationship. 

I don't think there's a "magic bullet" to winning in sports or anything else, other than it probably takes a whole bunch of dedication, self discipline and sacrifice of other things in one's life to achieve something great. There are very, very few people who can ride their talent alone to the top - for those that have the talent to dive into the deep end of the pool, they have to continue to learn how to tread water before they can master it...

With that being stated, I'm personally not a fan who wants their favorite teams to "win at all costs", regardless of how you do it. If I was, I probably wouldn't have been posting on online fan message boards for nearly 10+ years. However, I will state that as a fan of the Vikings, I've lived through two different types of Viking "periods": mediocrity/borderline playoff team (Jerry Burns, Mike Zimmer, most of Denny Green's era) and a bottom-feeder (Tice/Childress/Frazier years). Yeah, Chilly got us to the NFC Championship and even Tice/Leslie got to at least 1 playoff game, but let's face it, outside of the Les Steckel season and perhaps the initial era in the 60's, the Tice/Childress/Frazier era was probably the "low" point in Vikings history. 

...and I'd personally like to live through a period in Vikings history like the "Purple People Eater era", where the Vikings were consistent contenders for the division, Conference and even Super Bowl. Some would argue that Denny Green touched that period because the Vikings went to the playoffs consistently in his coaching tenure and even went to NFC Championships in 2 out of 3 seasons ('98 and '00), you never got the feeling they were a consistent contender. The '98 team - like the '09 team under Favre - was a moment in time, not the general rule of thumb. I've lived through the 49ers in the 80's...the Bills/Cowboys/49ers/Broncos/Packers in the 90's, the Patriots/Colts in the 2000's and the Patriots/Chiefs/Ravens/Packers of the 2010's. I'd like to live through an era of the Vikings consistently being contenders for a period of seasons and not just that single moment/season in time where things magically just clicked together. And for the Vikings to get to that place, they may have to look for players/coaches that have immense amounts of talent and dedication while possibly having a "blemish" or two in the "character" department. I'm not sure I would be all-for D Watson, simply because he seems to me like someone who has rode his high talent level to the top without putting much into the way of sacrifice/dedication/continuous improvement and since his base salaries, roster bonuses and guaranteed salaries all come with a hefty cap allocation, I'm not sure I would make that investment...somewhat because of his "character" (or lack of it when it comes to discipline....if he was truly dedicated to being the best NFL QB he could be, he probably would have never put himself in the situation he's currently in) and also somewhat because of his price tag and the question of perhaps not getting the value in return from it. So while I may not invest in the likes of D Watson, I might invest in the likes of someone else who some other might consider a "jerk" with low "character" because he wants to be the best and achieve the ultimate goal of winning a Super Bowl.

It depends on the situation.

I would have no problem taking Watson right now, because he hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing. There are "allegations" but that is all they are until substantiated.