Other than QB are the 2013 Vikings stronger than 2009?

[HardcoreVikesFan]

I am saying no.

I think our roster is very talented right now. However, better than the 2009 roster? I don't think we will be able to say until after the season.

The 2009 team doesn't have the young talent that we have now. However, we had multiple veterans that peaked and played very well for us in 2009.

Our 2009 team wasn't the best on defense, but that offense was unstoppable when we were on fire and especially at home.

[PacificNorseWest]

There is something about the character and makeup of the team that was lacking in all previous vikings teams I have been alive to see, including 98. That team had great talent, but not a lot of toughness or character. I hate to say that but its true. Mike Alstott ran all over them, and I was deathly afraid of having to deal with another big back in Jamal Anderson in that Falcons game.

That's on point. Something about the makeup of this team has me thinking differently about the capabilities of next seasons team. Mentally strong, physically tough, enough athletes here and there...Just all-around solid. I agree. Good post.

[mosscarter]

best vikings team of all time? are you kidding me, maybe if we had a quarterback i'd agree. the sad part is, the qb position is the only weak spot on the team.

[King James]

That's on point. Something about the makeup of this team has me thinking differently about the capabilities of next seasons team. Mentally strong, physically tough, enough athletes here and there...Just all-around solid. I agree. Good post.

I have to agree with this as well and excellent both. The 2009 team did not have the mental toughness to win the game and it showed after the next season. Even before the 2009 team, I've been complaining for years that the Vikings didn't have the toughness or character to be an elite team. It seems like they would always "give up" or "quit" when they were down in games. But this 2013 team, is filled with a lot of younger players but also guys who are playing with a chip on their shoulder. This team wants to win, I can see it. Instead of depending on Favre like the 2009 team, the 2013 understand that to win all of them need to play well.

[Purple Domination]

best vikings team of all time? are you kidding me, maybe if we had a quarterback i'd agree. the sad part is, the qb position is the only weak spot on the team.

How about MLB?

[S197]

I apologize for being so adamant but I really want that myth to die. I've seen it posted over and over again and it drives me crazy. Peterson does not deserve most of the blame for that Vikes loss. His fumbles were aggravating and sloppy but only one was detrimental and there were at least 3 other Vikings turnovers that either cost the Vikes likely points or gave the Saints points.

Similar to the "Vikings didn't want to keep Matt Birk" myth, I think these are one of those things that will never die no matter how many times we revisit it. Unfortunately.

[J. Kapp 11]

That's the problem. They did go wrong with them. As I said before, they played like crap during December, losing 3 of 5 games to blow HFA. The '09 team was just fine until they had to put the pedal to the metal.

I disagree. Sort of.

You are correct ... the Vikings were 10-1 when they went down to Arizona. That game was an all-round debacle, with the defense playing its worst football of the season, and the offense out of sync. Good teams have bad games, and this was about as bad as it gets.

But to me, the offensive problems started after an easy win against Cincinnati, when Bald Clueless decided Favre was getting too much credit and started stifling his authority to audible. The playcalling went to total crap against Carolina -- a team they should have beaten easily -- and stayed there until Favre gave Childress the proverbial, "Screw you," during the second half at Chicago, when he basically started drawing plays in the dirt and put up 30 points in an losing effort. The Vikings' offense played fine down the stretch, putting up 44 against the Giants and 34 against the Cowboys in the playoffs. At New Orleans, they outgained the Saints 475-257 and moved the ball at will, but handed away the game with five turnovers. I realize turnovers are part of an offense's effectiveness, but only the most homerish Saints fan would say the Vikings didn't beat themselves.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Childress was the problem in two of those three losses by stifling Favre. The Cardinals game looked like a tremendous lack of preparation, which I also lay at the feet of the clueless one. As far as playoffs are concerned, the Vikings should have been in the Super Bowl, and I'll maintain that until the day I die. They outplayed New Orleans, but handed them the game with turnovers.

And whoever said the offensive line was horrible against the Saints has a bad memory. The line allowed no sacks and had no penalties. They played arguably their best game of the season.

As for comparing '98 to '09 ... if pressed, I would pick '98. The thing we all need to remember -- the '98 team scored 556 points, by far the most in an NFL season until the '07 Patriots came along. That's a ton of points (it still pisses me off when people call the late '90s, early 2000s Rams the "Greatest Show on Turf" and act as though the '98 Vikings never existed). It's hard to imagine the '09 team's defense, especially those awful DBs, keeping up.

[Mothman]

As for comparing '98 to '09 ... if pressed, I would pick '98. The thing we all need to remember -- the '09 team scored 556 points...

I think you meant to say the '98 team scored 556 points.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think you meant to say the '98 team scored 556 points.

Rats.

Fixed. Thanks!

[jackal]

I think our defense is close maybe better if all these picks work out like last year ..

Its hard to look at our offense as close Ponder had what three less than 100 yard games last year..

[hibbingviking]

I nearly forgot about the specifics of the Childress/Favre split in the 2009 season. Thanks for reminding me. Was that the time Childress took that shot against Brett saying he didn't need a hug like Favre? or was that 2010?

As for the o-line's performance against the Saints the only reason Favre was never "sacked" was because he's Favre and got off the passes before he would get annihilated by bounty fueled defenders going after his head. This launched an entire scandal that rocked the NFL. Favre was destroyed on that day and the o-line was not blocking them off of Brett. It's not like the late hits came after the play was completely dead, it was virtually unopposed charging as soon as the ball left his hand, sometimes getting hit by 2 guys at the same time.

But thinking back that 2009 NFCCG was so surreal. There was so much going on in that game. The Vikings played their best game and their worst. There was some horrible calls that all went against us and just pure intensity all around. It just sucks we coughed up the ball so much and in such bizarre fashion. It's a bummer we lost and a bummer we didn't even get a chance to answer in OT.

1998 was more of a bummer imo.
so many heartaches.

[losperros]

But to me, the offensive problems started after an easy win against Cincinnati, when Bald Clueless decided Favre was getting too much credit and started stifling his authority to audible. The playcalling went to total crap against Carolina -- a team they should have beaten easily -- and stayed there until Favre gave Childress the proverbial, "Screw you," during the second half at Chicago, when he basically started drawing plays in the dirt and put up 30 points in an losing effort. The Vikings' offense played fine down the stretch, putting up 44 against the Giants and 34 against the Cowboys in the playoffs. At New Orleans, they outgained the Saints 475-257 and moved the ball at will, but handed away the game with five turnovers. I realize turnovers are part of an offense's effectiveness, but only the most homerish Saints fan would say the Vikings didn't beat themselves.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Childress was the problem in two of those three losses by stifling Favre. The Cardinals game looked like a tremendous lack of preparation, which I also lay at the feet of the clueless one. As far as playoffs are concerned, the Vikings should have been in the Super Bowl, and I'll maintain that until the day I die. They outplayed New Orleans, but handed them the game with turnovers.

And whoever said the offensive line was horrible against the Saints has a bad memory. The line allowed no sacks and had no penalties. They played arguably their best game of the season.

I agree with all the above and I think your points were clearly documented in the games. That said, maybe we disagree on what the 2009 team's self-destruct mode and the "turnovers" meant about the team. To me the 2009 Vikings beating themselves is a clear indicator that they weren't as great as some people believed they were and still believe to this day. Great teams don't self-collapse like that in key situations.

I also agree that Childress is the villain here. However, as Jim (Moth) pointed out in a thread a while ago, from the 2009 December fiasco through the 2010 season the Vikings went 9-15 in regular season play. I realize there might be a lot of different reasons but I still believe the Vikings were exposed during the December games as a team in trouble and that dynamic never went away. Well, not until Childress was gone for good, which again supports your reasoning about Chili being the source of the problems. But my main point is that the 2009 Vikings team (as it was, including having Childress as the HC) was not an unstoppable juggernaut. Why? Because they were stopped (even if it was because of their own bungling) in the December games and lost HFA. And they came up short again in the Championship game. Outplaying the Saints but shooting themselves down only makes it worse.

As for comparing '98 to '09 ... if pressed, I would pick '98. The thing we all need to remember -- the '98 team scored 556 points, by far the most in an NFL season until the '07 Patriots came along. That's a ton of points (it still pisses me off when people call the late '90s, early 2000s Rams the "Greatest Show on Turf" and act as though the '98 Vikings never existed). It's hard to imagine the '09 team's defense, especially those awful DBs, keeping up.

Yes, I absolutely agree.