NFL.com -- zero respect for Vikings

[J. Kapp 11]

I normally try to refrain from the "woe is me" attitude about the media's typical take on the Vikings. But as I look at NFL.com today, I see no mention on the homepage of the Vikings whipping Houston to set themselves up to control their own playoff destiny.

However, I do see headlines such as "Bears take care of business vs. Cardinals" and "NFC playoff picture: Cowboys still in control." Seriously? The BEARS? They played like schiest and won against a bad team that beat themselves. The Cowboys? They choked at home against an 8-loss team.

Other than Seattle's impressive thrashing of San Fran last night (accomplished in Seattle, by the way), no NFC team was more dominant than the Vikings yesterday. And their improbable 3-game winning streak during crunch time, including two straight wins against playoff contenders on the road, is a major story in my opinion. Apparently NFL Network doesn't agree.

I guess I'll just have to deal with the fact that nobody outside of our fanbase thinks much of our team. Maybe that's a good thing.

[smoothoperator]

entirely true. the texans did not score a td for the first time since 06, but apparently that was houston's fault, not our defense...it is really ridiculous.

[MDviking]

Should get some more exposure next week after the nation sees us (hopefully) take down Green Bay. Looks like the MIN-GB game is going to be Fox's Game of the week because the WAS-DAL game was flexed to Sunday night. With the way the Vikes have played in primetime games of late, I'm glad they didn't get flexed.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/1 ... me/162822/

[losperros]

I guess I'll just have to deal with the fact that nobody outside of our fanbase thinks much of our team. Maybe that's a good thing.

I think it is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with being tougher than one is regarded as being. It could work to the Vikings favor. Maybe it already has.

BTW, I have to admit that I didn't think the Vikings would beat the Texans and I've been a Vikings fan for most of my life. Heck, even some of us have underestimated our own team!

[Mothman]

I normally try to refrain from the "woe is me" attitude about the media's typical take on the Vikings. But as I look at NFL.com today, I see no mention on the homepage of the Vikings whipping Houston to set themselves up to control their own playoff destiny.

However, I do see headlines such as "Bears take care of business vs. Cardinals" and "NFC playoff picture: Cowboys still in control." Seriously? The BEARS? They played like schiest and won against a bad team that beat themselves. The Cowboys? They choked at home against an 8-loss team.

Other than Seattle's impressive thrashing of San Fran last night (accomplished in Seattle, by the way), no NFC team was more dominant than the Vikings yesterday. And their improbable 3-game winning streak during crunch time, including two straight wins against playoff contenders on the road, is a major story in my opinion. Apparently NFL Network doesn't agree.

I guess I'll just have to deal with the fact that nobody outside of our fanbase thinks much of our team. Maybe that's a good thing.

It may not seem like an important distinction but NFL.com and NFL Network are different.

To your point: I agree that the Vikings winning streak should be considered a major story but NFL.com's latest headlines are literally their latest headlines. If you click on the "Latest Headlines" header, you'll see that each headline on the list that pops up is accompanied by a time stamp (40 minutes, ago, 11 hours ago, etc.). Scroll down the headline list and the Vikes are right in there along with everyone else. The headlines read: "Vikings deny Texans home-field playoff advantage" and "Peterson rests late in Vikings' resounding road win". At one point yesterday, the Vikings were one of the featured stories on the main page but with 32 teams, the stories change.

[J. Kapp 11]

They covered it on the NFL Network satellite channel. Your post is confusing because you talk about NFL.com. It certainly does seem the NFL.com site could have more mention than just saying "Texans in hot water".

NFL.com is the same thing as NFL Network. It's their online version. Same corporation. One typically reflects the other.

And I'm talking about the homepage today. A rational person would believe that the headlines/major links on a Monday NFL homepage would highlight the most important games from Sunday. Apparently, a crappy Bears team being handed an ugly win by an utterly abysmal Cardinals team is bigger news than the Vikings beating the #1 seed in the AFC on the road to secure control-your-own destiny status.

[Mothman]

NFL.com is the same thing as NFL Network. It's their online version. Same corporation. One typically reflects the other.

And I'm talking about the homepage today. A rational person would believe that the headlines/major links on a Monday NFL homepage would highlight the most important games from Sunday. Apparently, a crappy Bears team being handed an ugly win by an utterly abysmal Cardinals team is bigger news than the Vikings beating the #1 seed in the AFC on the road to secure control-your-own destiny status.

Not bigger... just more recent.

[J. Kapp 11]

It may not seem like an important distinction but NFL.com and NFL Network are different.

While that's true from the standpoint of having different people in charge of each, I'm pretty sure they're both run by the same group. But if we want to get technical, an admin is free to change the subject to "NFL.com -- zero respect for Vikings."

To your point: I agree that the Vikings winning streak should be considered a major story but NFL.com's latest headlines are literally their latest headlines. If you click on the "Latest Headlines" header, you'll see that each headline on the list that pops up is accompanied by a time stamp (40 minutes, ago, 11 hours ago, etc.). Scroll down the headline list and the Vikes are right in there along with everyone else. The headlines read: "Vikings deny Texans home-field playoff advantage" and "Peterson rests late in Vikings' resounding road win". At one point yesterday, the Vikings were one of the featured stories on the main page but with 32 teams, the stories change.

I don't know Jim. I just refreshed the page and looked again. It's not there.

And yes, the stories change. However, the irrelevant Tim Tebow refusing to run the Wildcat for the awful Jets is not a bigger story than the Vikings beating Houston. Yet there's the Tebow story, right on the homepage.

[Mothman]

While that's true from the standpoint of having different people in charge of each, I'm pretty sure they're both run by the same group. But if we want to get technical, an admin is free to change the subject to "NFL.com -- zero respect for Vikings."

You can actually change it by editing it in your original post. I used to think I needed an admin to make that change too but it's a DIY operation.

I just pointed out the difference because, when I read the thread title, I was expecting you to comment about remarks made on NFLN or a lack of TV coverage, not about the web site.

I don't know Jim. I just refreshed the page and looked again. It's not there.

The headlines are still there but they're near the end of the list because they've been up quite a while. They're on this page: http://www.nfl.com/news

... but you have to hit "older" below the list of headlines to scroll back to them.

And yes, the stories change. However, the irrelevant Tim Tebow refusing to run the Wildcat for the awful Jets is not a bigger story than the Vikings beating Houston. Yet there's the Tebow story, right on the homepage.

I agree but I think that reflects the media's idiotic obsession with Tebow more than disrespect for the Vikings.

Don't worry, when the Vikes beat GB next week, they'll get serious attention!

[cstelter]

I was going to post some disagreement based on this clip: http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20000 ... highlights

The Vikings go to Houston the #1 seed in the AFC and win easily. If you look at the numbers deep inside, it was just complete domination. If you saw the scroreboard and didn't see the game you'd probably say well the Texans just they made mistakes and ulimately beat themselves. The Vikings defense held the texans to 187 total yards, 2 field goals. Arian Foster held to 15 yards rushing on 10 carries. They were 1 for 11 on 3rd downs. As good as Christian Ponder was being efficient, this game was won by the Vikings defense on the road.

That's not zero respect.

But when I went to find that clip today I find a new version of it.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap20000 ... -vs-Texans

Virtually all the same footage but none of the stats or nice quotes. This one says 'Arian Foster has a tough game, he puts the ball on the ground. That's very uncharacteristic of him'. As if Jasper had *nothing* to do with it. They did say if the vikings win next week they're in the playoffs, but there was just over-talking background noise that you could barely make it out.

First clip not so bad. Second one, I get your point.

[J. Kapp 11]

Changed the thread title for accuracy. Thanks Jim for the tip.

[losperros]

Changed the thread title for accuracy. Thanks Jim for the tip.

You still have it wrong. NFL.com has absolutely nothing to do with NFL.com. They're two completely different entities, so you'll have to change the thread title again.

Just kidding.

A little holiday humor there. Yes, very little, I know.