Pepper2Moss wrote:Lions are 5.5 point favorites... That seems about 2-3 points higher than it should be, but I guess Detroit is a trendy bounce back pick this year & the no one seems to look past the Vikes QB when considering their talent level this year.
I was watching NFL Network this afternoon.
They were talking about whether Chicago has a chance to win the division.
The talking heads agreed the Bears do have a chance to overtake Green Bay. Then, in a passing shot, one of them said, "So do the Lions, for that matter."
Amazing. A 4-12 team has a chance. The Bears have a chance. No mention of the 10-6 Vikings.
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
I was watching NFL Network this afternoon.
They were talking about whether Chicago has a chance to win the division.
The talking heads agreed the Bears do have a chance to overtake Green Bay. Then, in a passing shot, one of them said, "So do the Lions, for that matter."
Amazing. A 4-12 team has a chance. The Bears have a chance. No mention of the 10-6 Vikings.
I've seen or heard similar takes several times this offseason. The only remotely compelling reason i've heard to justify it is the difficulty of the Vikings schedule.
Hopefully, the Vikes will make all the prognosticators that are basically ignoring them look foolish and ideally, that will start this weekend with a convincing victory over the Lions.
I heard someone say a vikings insider said Ponder may be benched if he doesn't win at least 4 out of the first 6 games, anyone think this could be true?
When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.
Orion wrote:I heard someone say a vikings insider said Ponder may be benched if he doesn't win at least 4 out of the first 6 games, anyone think this could be true?
J. Kapp 11 wrote:
I was watching NFL Network this afternoon.
They were talking about whether Chicago has a chance to win the division.
The talking heads agreed the Bears do have a chance to overtake Green Bay. Then, in a passing shot, one of them said, "So do the Lions, for that matter."
Amazing. A 4-12 team has a chance. The Bears have a chance. No mention of the 10-6 Vikings.
Standard Par for the Course ; cowboy 2 two hours of discussion each day, Steelers 2 hours, Pats 4 hours, Vikings 2 minutes per day. Get used to it
Amazing. A 4-12 team has a chance. The Bears have a chance. No mention of the 10-6 Vikings.
The Lions schedule will also be easier because of that schedule. Part of the reason we got the schedule that we did was the 3 win season. Now the Lions have that last place schedule, and we get the tougher one.
Do people really believe we're that much better than the Lions or Bears? Seems to be like all three teams are at about the same level. Have their own strengths and weaknesses, and with the Vikings road issues I can see why they'd put the line at what they did.
Flip a coin on whether or not I think we'll win. I could see a close game either way, or a blow out either way. Neither team is good/bad enough to say either way for certain.
Orion wrote:I heard someone say a vikings insider said Ponder may be benched if he doesn't win at least 4 out of the first 6 games, anyone think this could be true?
Ponder benched if they're 3-3 after playing the Giants in NY? Not a chance. The Vikings should be perfectly happy to be 3-3 at that point. They're more likely to be 2-4, and Ponder will still be the starting QB when Green Bay comes to town for the 7th game.
Demi wrote:
The Lions schedule will also be easier because of that schedule. Part of the reason we got the schedule that we did was the 3 win season. Now the Lions have that last place schedule, and we get the tougher one.
Do people really believe we're that much better than the Lions or Bears? Seems to be like all three teams are at about the same level. Have their own strengths and weaknesses, and with the Vikings road issues I can see why they'd put the line at what they did.
Flip a coin on whether or not I think we'll win. I could see a close game either way, or a blow out either way. Neither team is good/bad enough to say either way for certain.
Couldn't agree more.
So why do the so-called experts see the opposite? That the Lions and Bears as significantly better than the Vikings?
They're not. None of those three is exactly a juggernaut.
Orion wrote:I heard someone say a vikings insider said Ponder may be benched if he doesn't win at least 4 out of the first 6 games, anyone think this could be true?
An insider said that ? I do not suppose that you could find out his name or was it a VMB insider
Do not mistake KINDNESS for WEAKNESS!
Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Mothman wrote: The only remotely compelling reason i've heard to justify it is the difficulty of the Vikings schedule.
Demi wrote:The Lions schedule will also be easier because of that schedule. Part of the reason we got the schedule that we did was the 3 win season. Now the Lions have that last place schedule, and we get the tougher one.
I think it's hard to really argue about two whole games. Strength of schedule is hard to argue within the division, period. Sure, the Vikings have a tougher schedule, by two games (technically). We both play the NFC North, AFC North, and NFC East. They have the Cards and Bucs for their other two games (because of final divisional standings), and we have the Seahawks and Panthers. Eh, we have it a little tougher but not by much. It's barely worth mentioning if you ask me. Besides, I would think their 4-12 team playing our 10-6 team twice cancels out their assumed advantage.
And...I'd be right. The Lions ACTUALLY have a tougher road to the Super Bowl--second only to the Panthers.
Lions- .539 (138-118)
Vikings- .516 (132-124)
Tell me again how the Vikings have a tougher schedule.
MelanieMFunk wrote:
I think it's hard to really argue about two whole games. Strength of schedule is hard to argue within the division, period. Sure, the Vikings have a tougher schedule, by two games (technically). We both play the NFC North, AFC North, and NFC East. They have the Cards and Bucs for their other two games (because of final divisional standings), and we have the Seahawks and Panthers. Eh, we have it a little tougher but not by much. It's barely worth mentioning if you ask me. Besides, I would think their 4-12 team playing our 10-6 team twice cancels out their assumed advantage.
And...I'd be right. The Lions ACTUALLY have a tougher road to the Super Bowl--second only to the Panthers.
Lions- .539 (138-118)
Vikings- .516 (132-124)
Tell me again how the Vikings have a tougher schedule.
It's not always just who a team plays but the way the schedule is laid out. The Vikings start with two road games in their division (which is tough) and play a "home" game in London. They also have an early bye. My guess is a lot of these experts expect that early schedule to put them in enough of a hole that they won't be able to dig out of it during what looks like a very difficult mid-season stretch of games.
I also think they're basing their predictions on quarterbacks and we're all too familiar with that conversations at this point...
MelanieMFunk wrote:
I think it's hard to really argue about two whole games. Strength of schedule is hard to argue within the division, period. Sure, the Vikings have a tougher schedule, by two games (technically). We both play the NFC North, AFC North, and NFC East. They have the Cards and Bucs for their other two games (because of final divisional standings), and we have the Seahawks and Panthers. Eh, we have it a little tougher but not by much. It's barely worth mentioning if you ask me. Besides, I would think their 4-12 team playing our 10-6 team twice cancels out their assumed advantage.
And...I'd be right. The Lions ACTUALLY have a tougher road to the Super Bowl--second only to the Panthers.
Lions- .539 (138-118)
Vikings- .516 (132-124)
Tell me again how the Vikings have a tougher schedule.
Well you have to remember that those number include the division games. Take out the division games and see what happens. It is also based on last years records. For example, MN plays Seattle while Green Bay plays San Fran. Really think that is any easier? In reality, outside the division the teams play all the same teams other than two.
Without the division games. The half games for the Packers and Bears come from the Niners - Rams tie last year.
The biggest difference in the Lions and Vikings schedule is the 12 game swing that comes into play because of the division games between the two teams. For example, the swing between the Packers and Vikings is only two games and there is no swing between the Vikings and Bears. The Lions have the "tougher" schedule based mostly on the fact that the teams in the division have to play them twice and they only went 4-12.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Raptorman wrote: Well you have to remember that those number include the division games. Take out the division games and see what happens. It is also based on last years records. For example, MN plays Seattle while Green Bay plays San Fran. Really think that is any easier? In reality, outside the division the teams play all the same teams other than two.
Without the division games. The half games for the Packers and Bears come from the Niners - Rams tie last year.
The biggest difference in the Lions and Vikings schedule is the 12 game swing that comes into play because of the division games between the two teams. For example, the swing between the Packers and Vikings is only two games and there is no swing between the Vikings and Bears. The Lions have the "tougher" schedule based mostly on the fact that the teams in the division have to play them twice and they only went 4-12.
Were you basically trying to echo my thoughts or...?
Either way, worrying about a couple of games and how the schedule is laid out seems like excuses in the making to me.
As Moth said, I think our real "excuse" is the QB position in comparison to the Lions'...and everyone else pretty much lol, but we don't need to go down that road. Been there too many times. My point was, just that I don't think the schedule is a significant reason to give the Lions more credit than us--or for fans to buck about. That doesn't seem right. We all know the real issues here.
