Other than QB are the 2013 Vikings stronger than 2009?

[big deli Vike]

i think the team minus the QB is a lot better, allen and peterson are leaders and with youth on the D, they can be great. BUt when you say minus the QB thats a huge subtraction

[Demi]

Thought it was this year vs last year.

vs 2009?

[PurpleHalo]

Not at all. Let's take a look.

QB:
Favre >>>>> Ponder.

RB:
AD is the same but Taylor > Gerhart as 3DRB/backup.

WR:
Rice, Harvin, Berrian >> Jennings, Simpson, Patterson.

TE:
We'll call Shiancoe and Rudolph a wash but Kleinsasser was better than Carlson and Ellison.

OL:
Sullivan and Loadholt were starters then as well, but both have greatly improved since then, so I'll give the C/RT edge to 2013, I'll be generous and say Kalil is better than 2009 McKinnie but Hutch and Herrera #### on Johnson and Fusco.

DL:
2009 Allen/K-Will > 2013 Allen/KWill. Pat >>> Guion. Edwards and Robison is a wash.

LB:
EJ, Leber and 2009 Greenway defeat 2013 Greenway, Erin and MLBTBNL in a landslide.

CB:
2009 wins again. Winfield, Griffin and Sapp were solid. We don't even know what we have in Cook, Rhodes and J-Rob.

S:
Me and Mothman are better than Madieu Williams and Tyrell Johnson so 2013 wins here.

ST:
Walsh > Longwell.
We don't know how Kluwe will compare to Locke yet, so I'll give it to Kluwe.
Loeffler is the same.
And I'll take Harvin and Reynaud over Sherels. (CP will probably be a returner but he hasn't even put on pads yet)

Coaching:
Frazier >> Us message board posters > a blind 3 legged dog >>> Mike Tice's ACL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bald Clueless


So Recap:

2009 wins: QB, RB*, WR, TE, LG, RG, UT*, NT, LDE*, SLB*, MLB, WLB, RCB, LCB, P, KR, PR, Coaching
2013 wins: C*, RT*, LT, FS, SS.
TIE: RDE, LS*

FInal score: 2009 wins 18-5-2

*same starters for both.

You are listing Pat on the 2013 line? And no mention of the rising star Everson Griffeth!

Edit: Oh I see you are comparing Pat to the current DT in Pats spot, got it.

What about Floyd?

[PacificNorseWest]

Maybe next year, but not today. Once these younger guys all get some good experience and know the nuances of the game then you'll see this team clicking on all cylinders.

If you base it off potential then yes, you can say that if everyone pans out then they'll be a stronger team than the '09 Vikes, but you just can't assume that. The potential has to be realized in order for the team to be a dominate force. That takes some time.

[saint33]

Robison and Edwards are not a wash. Robison is 10X the player Edwards ever was. Add Everson into the mix, and I'll take 2013 LE over 2009

[Mothman]

80 PurplePride 84 nailed it. The potential is there for this roster to get where that one did but right now, on paper, the 2009 team was superior at far more than just QB.

[DanAS]

I think this 2013 group is strong enough at this point, that its fair to at least compare us to the 2009 group that went all the way to the NFC championship and was one OT away from the Super Bowl.

Not counting the Ponder-Favre factor, do you feel the roster/coaching staff entering the 2013 season is better all-around than our 2009 Vikings? (And i mean this time frozen, so you are comparing the impact of 2009 Jared Allen vs. 2013 Jared Allen for instance, 2009 Adrian vs 2013 Adrian, etc.)

And if you can't decide then don't vote.

It's a good question and a nice thread topic. But just think about the profound significance of the "other than QB" intro. Today, cnn.com gave their view of the "weakest link" of all 32 teams, and the Vikes selection was Ponder. Some would disagree with that assessment, but I still say that he hasn't even proven himself to be mediocre, let alone very good, and you need a QB who is very good -- added to the other personnel we have -- to measure up to the 2009 team.

[Mothman]

It's a good question and a nice thread topic. But just think about the profound significance of the "other than QB" intro. Today, cnn.com gave their view of the "weakest link" of all 32 teams, and the Vikes selection was Ponder. Some would disagree with that assessment, but I still say that he hasn't even proven himself to be mediocre, let alone very good, and you need a QB who is very good -- added to the other personnel we have -- to measure up to the 2009 team.

I'd say it's just another example of the media overplaying the importance of QB or just being too lazy to look at the team and say, notice the gaping hole they're trying to fill at middle linebacker with a journeyman player or the fact that Jennings, who has missed significant time in each of the last two seasons, is the only truly proven WR on their roster.

I think it's a real disservice to Ponder to say he hasn't even proven himself to be mediocre. He was the QB of a 10 win playoff team and he played a crucial role in some of their wins, not just in some of their losses.

[dead_poet]

Here's my rub: we're comparing actual team performance on the field during the season to potential on-paper performance during the offseason. A better question might be asking of the 2012 squad or waiting until after the season (or at least midway).

That aside, my vote is no.

[Purple bruise]

Yeah it was all good until Favre tossed that across the body interception which pretty much cost them the game Of course without him they had no chance of making it that far anyway.

[Funkytown]

Yeah it was all good until Favre tossed that across the body interception which pretty much cost them the game Of course without him they had no chance of making it that far anyway.

I think the Vikings would have made the playoffs that year without Favre. Not sure we would have made it to the NFC Championship, because I can't remember who else was in the playoffs besides us, Cowboys, and the *cough* Saints. But, we could have EASILY gone on the road to beat the Cowboys if we had to--if we lost another game or two and didn't get a home game. The Cowboys were a freakin' joke. I was at that game. It was beautiful. Cowboys suck. The end.

But seriously, the '08 and '09 Vikings were awesome at times. I think we were a playoff team without Mr. Fav-ray.

With that said, I voted "no". I just think there are a few too many question marks/unproven guys to make that call at this point. Am I hoping we are stronger than the '09 team? Uuuh yeah. But it's just too early for all that. I do think our team is solid, though. I feel good about it.

[PacificNorseWest]

The '09 Vikings were the best Vikings team I've ever seen in my lifetime (born '85). I think they would've beat the 1998 Vikings.

[Mothman]

The '09 Vikings were the best Vikings team I've ever seen in my lifetime (born '85). I think they would've beat the 1998 Vikings.

I doubt it. They weren't built to beat the '98 Vikings. I don't think they had the secondary to do the job and their Tampa 2 wasn't up to the level of the Tampa 2 that actually beat the '98 Vikes in the regular season.

However, between Denny's desire to take a knee and Favre's tendency to throw crucial INTs in playoff games, one of those two teams could have found a way to blow a big game!

Personally, I think the '98 team was much better but I'd take the Vikes best teams of the '60s and '70s over either.

[mondry]

I doubt it. They weren't built to beat the '98 Vikings. I don't think they had the secondary to do the job and their Tampa 2 wasn't up to the level of the Tampa 2 that actually beat the '98 Vikes in the regular season.

However, between Denny's desire to take a knee and Favre's tendency to throw crucial INTs in playoff games, one of those two teams could have found a way to blow a big game!

Personally, I think the '98 team was much better but I'd take the Vikes best teams of the '60s and '70s over either.

Yeah no kidding. The 98 receivers would have had a field day against madieu williams and tyrell johnson, and back then the offensive line was really strong so allen and edwards wouldn't have done much. It's also the type of offense that would take away AD by establishing a big lead.

As far as the op, I think the 2009 team is better but not by all that much. As mentioned the madieu williams and tyrell johnson combo was probably close to worst in the league. I also think 2013 Peterson is far greater than 2009 Peterson. Remember back then he had a fumbling problem and always wanted to bounce it outside for the homerun. 2013 AD is much more patient and solved his fumbling problem.

[mondry]

I'll play along

QB
Favre > Ponder - As of now can't really argue this one

RB - MOST VALUABLE PLAYER PETERSON > 2009 Peterson + CT. AD fixes his fumbling problem, becomes much more patient, far superior to his 2009 version who fumbled in the NFCCG.

WR - Harvin was talented as always but really really raw at this point and Berrian was beginning a long slide to useless. Jennings and Rice probably a wash. Patterson can do what Harvin did back then. Calling it a tie.

TE - Another wash

OL - Kalil blows Mckinnie out of the water here, sullivan and loadholt are better now than they were in 2009, Hutch was getting up there and herrera was pretty average - advantage 2013

DL - Robison and Everson Griffen are far better than Edwards who went to atlanta and did literally nothing. Floyd will be a big deal as well, still, a younger Allen and K.will with an aging fat pat means advantage 2009

LB - Leber / Erin are the same, 2013 Greenway better than 2009 Greenway, EJ vs whoever at MLB makes it a wash, EJ was constantly beat in coverage but good in run support.

CB - Winfield was still decent at this point, Griffin was maturing but kept tearing ACL's and Sapp was awful. I like Josh Robinson a lot as winfields replacement and cook / griffen are a wash. Rhodes > Sapp advantage 2013

S - Double advantage for 2013

ST - Walsh far better than longwell, Patterson and Harvin = wash, kluwe vs Locke probably another wash = advantage 2013

Coaching - Advantage 2013

2013 - 6
2009 - 2
Wash - 3

That's the way I see it, as you can tell I'm pretty high on the 2013 team and think they're legit superbowl contenders if Ponder takes a step. Of course one of those two wins for the 2009 team is QB and that's a huge one. If 2009 Favre could play on this 2013 team (reunited with Jennings etc etc) they'd easily be not just favored but expected to win the superbowl in my book. The other biggest reason? He wouldn't have the Childress Anchor holding him down, let's not forget just how AWFUL childress really was folks, that will always weigh the 2009 team down.