Sick of the moral victories

[jackal]

I am wondering if it bothers us a lot this year because we know the team is good, and the coaching staff
is good and we know these games really are going to matter versus GB. I know previous years, yeah we A.P.
but Ponder uhhh or our coaching staff (Frazier) had no life in it.

[IrishViking]

I think a lot of us are already looking forward to the KC game and seeing a let down.


Let's focus down. If you took this game and showed someone who understood football but had no idea about the teams histories, just had them look at this game in a vacuum, and then told them that Denver was undefeated and excepted to compete for the Superbowl I think they would concluded that the Vikings would also be in that hunt.

Apart from the missed field goal and a some utterly nonsensical trick plays We were locked in this game.

This wasn't a moral victory this was a team playing better than it played last year in all facets of the game. Back to my beginning point; I think what most of us are doing, possibly even subconsciously, is assuming the KC game will be poorly played with no energy and we will lose a game that by rights we should win. Thus continuing the Vikings tradition of playing to the level of the opponent. I rather think that this game is a good indication of the quality of the team and IF they come out and play at this level against KC we should win handily.

[Mothman]

As all the players said in the postgame locker room interviews, if you play like that, you'll win a lot of road games in the NFL.

To be honest, if that's what they were saying, I find it disappointing. I don't think a team is likely to win a lot of road games where they allow 144 yards rushing, miss a field goal, allow 7 sacks for 57 yards, commit 9 penalties...

As Zimmer said after the game, they have some things to clean up.

[fiestavike]

To be honest, if that's what they were saying, I find it disappointing. I don't think a team is likely to win a lot of road games where they allow 144 yards rushing, miss a field goal, allow 7 sacks for 57 yards, commit 9 penalties...

As Zimmer said after the game, they have some things to clean up.

I think you are underestimating how much the Broncos had to do with those numbers...and as you know numbers don't tell the whole story. It was a great effort.

Of course they have things to clean up, but I think Zimmer's also the guy who said that if they play like that they are going to win a lot of road games. It was obviously the post game talking point since Peterson, Wallace, and Diggs all said it in basically the same words.

[IrishViking]

Apart from the penalties they played well.

Big plays are going to happen. They just do sometimes. They happen for everyone and to everyone. 144 yards with 70 something coming on one run is pretty damn good on the road against Denver. Intercepting Peyton twice was nice. Our Defense played stout and played so well that our penalties didn't break us. we had a chance to win at the end. They play with that tenacity and clean up the errors (AND those god forsaken trick plays!!!!!!!) they will compete with every team for the rest of the year except for maybe a Packers Team with a particularly focused in Rodgers.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Tough loss to swallow at first, but then you look at how well Teddy, Diggs, and Wallace played vs the number one defense in the league. which brings me a lot of optimism. We should beat KC at home, especially with 2 weeks to prepare.

[J. Kapp 11]

To be honest, if that's what they were saying, I find it disappointing. I don't think a team is likely to win a lot of road games where they allow 144 yards rushing, miss a field goal, allow 7 sacks for 57 yards, commit 9 penalties...

As Zimmer said after the game, they have some things to clean up.

Totally agree, Jim. We have to clean up the miscues in order to win important road games like this.

But you can't watch this game and come away believing the needle is pointing down. You just can't (and I realize, that's not what you're saying, but others are). The first step is just being competitive in games like this ... we did that yesterday, giving the Broncos all they could handle, and that hasn't been the case for some time now. The next step is to get over the hump and win games like this. A lot of that falls on your quarterback and your head coach. After yesterday, I believe we're in good hands with both.

The most encouraging thing for me was that this was Teddy's team today, perhaps for the first time. It was not Adrian's team. Teddy was in charge against a truly ferocious defense, and he acquitted himself very well. Watch him in the 4th quarter. He was really good. You're not going to be perfect against a defense like this, but he did the job when the team's back was against the wall.

Don't get me wrong. I'm bitterly disappointed in this loss. But that bitter disappointment tells me the team is moving in the right direction. Unlike the past, where losses against SB caliber teams were just expected, this one felt different. I honestly thought we had a chance to pull this one out, especially after we came back from 10 points down to tie it up. That believe stemmed not from hoping for luck, but because it was obvious tome that we were good enough, especially on defense.

I truly believe these games are going to start turning our way, and very soon. YMMV.

[Mothman]

I think you are underestimating how much the Broncos had to do with those numbers...and as you know numbers don't tell the whole story. It was a great effort.

I'm not underestimating how much the Broncos had to do with those numbers. I'm simply talking about the differences between winning and losing against a good team on the road. The Vikes need to have commit fewer mistakes requires fewer mistakes and breakdowns. They need to close out games. I agree, they played hard. Their effort was excellent but it was also insufficient. Over the years, we've seen them lose a LOT of games in which they put forth a strong effort.

Of course they have things to clean up, but I think Zimmer's also the guy who said that if they play like that they are going to win a lot of road games.

Then I disagree with him too.

I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate or curmudgeon here. I don't want the team taking satisfaction in a moral victory like that because they need to hold themselves to a higher standard. They need to become better and they need to win. I'd rather see them react like they did after losing to SF, with anger and renewed determination. Almost immediately after the game, on KFAN, Zimmer was asked something like "Did you feel your team performed up to expectations?" and he answered that he had expected them to win the game. That's the attitude I want from Zimmer and his team because that's the standard they need to set. That's the standard their biggest rival has been setting for years now and if the Vikes are ever going to unseat them and seize control of the division again, a good effort in a loss can't be good enough. They can't be satisfied with that. I refuse to be satisfied with it. The Vikes aren't in the position the Bears are in this year, with so much work to do that they should feel good about a game like that. They lost a winnable game yesterday.

[fiestavike]

I'm not underestimating how much the Broncos had to do with those numbers. I'm simply talking about the differences between winning and losing against a good team on the road. The Vikes need to have commit fewer mistakes requires fewer mistakes and breakdowns. They need to close out games. I agree, they played hard. Their effort was excellent but it was also insufficient. Over the years, we've seen them lose a LOT of games in which they put forth a strong effort.
Then I disagree with him too.

I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate or curmudgeon here. I don't want the team taking satisfaction in a moral victory like that because they need to hold themselves to a higher standard. They need to become better and they need to win. I'd rather see them react like they did after losing to SF, with anger and renewed determination. Almost immediately after the game, on KFAN, Zimmer was asked something like "Did you feel your team performed up to expectations?" and he answered that he had expected them to win the game. That's the attitude I want from Zimmer and his team because that's the standard they need to set. That's the standard their biggest rival has been setting for years now and if the Vikes are ever going to unseat them and seize control of the division again, a good effort in a loss can't be good enough. They can't be satisfied with that. I refuse to be satisfied with it. The Vikes aren't in the position the Bears are in this year, with so much work to do that they should feel good about a game like that. They lost a winnable game yesterday.

I agree they shouldn't be satisfied with losing. As Teddy said, we'll be in another game like this later in the year and we will come out on top. I loved hearing him say that. But It seemed evident to me (and I think to the players) that they are a legitimate team. You know, I've been a Vikings fan for a long time, and I'm not saying this team will win the superbowl this year, but I feel like this is the best Vikings team I've had the chance to watch. That's what made Week 1 so maddening. I know this is getting into territory some will view as hyperbolic, its not that I'm saying this team would beat the 09 team or the 98 team, but I'm saying this team has a character and substance that gives them a better chance to win it all than I've ever seen in a Vikings team. (the 98 team was small and poor against the run on defense. They were like the Manning Colts. It didn't hurt as much when you were up 30, but against better teams, with big backs, they struggled...I was never sold on the '09 team. They had a ton of holes all over the place despite Favre having his best season as a Pro.)

Ironically, I think the Broncos might be in the same boat. Manning has been lights out, but never (or only once--and then against rex grossman) had that offense or that team built to win on the big stage. Now, maybe they do, but they are having some growing pains. I like the chances of this Broncos team to win the Super Bowl more than I liked any team Peyton ever Quarterbacked before. A lot of his colts teams were like the 98 Vikings team: Undersized and poor against the run. At their best opportunistic with the lead, at their worst inept against the run and the pass, usually in closer games. What I'm saying is that there is something about the character of this Broncos team (and also of this Vikings team) that feels really legitimate to me. We are contesting a huge percentage of passes, putting pressure on a huge percentage of drop backs, yes the run fits aren't perfect, no the O line isn't great, no, we still have no answer opposite Harrison Smith, but its a work in progress, and championships aren't won in week 4.

I just see this team being a different caliber than they have been in a LOooooong time.

[Mothman]

I agree, Jim. We have to clean up the miscues in order to win important road games like this.

But you can't watch this game and come away believing the needle is pointing down. You just can't (and I realize, that's not what you're saying, but others are). The first step is just being competitive in games like this ... we did that yesterday, giving the Broncos all they could handle, and that hasn't been the case for some time now.

The next step is to get over the hump and win games like this. A lot of that falls on your quarterback and your head coach. After yesterday, I believe we're in good hands with both.

The most encouraging thing for me was that this was Teddy's team today, perhaps for the first time. It was not Adrian's team. Teddy was in charge against a truly ferocious defense, and he acquitted himself very well. Watch him in the 4th quarter. He was really good. You're not going to be perfect against a defense like this, but he did the job when the team's back was against the wall.

Don't get me wrong. I'm bitterly disappointed in this loss. But that bitter disappointment tells me the team is moving in the right direction. Unlike the past, where losses against SB caliber teams were just expected, this one felt different. I honestly thought we had a chance to pull this one out, especially after we came back from 10 points down to tie it up. That believe stemmed not from hoping for luck, but because it was obvious tome that we were good enough, especially on defense.

It seems a lot of our reactions depend on how we each perceive the Broncos and how we've perceived the Vikes in recent years. To me, this loss was like losing a close, winnable game on the road at Detroit last year. I don't feel as if the Vikes went on the road and went to toe-to-toe with a powerhouse for 4 quarters. I'd feel differently if this had been a 23-20 loss at New England. The Broncos are good, mainly on defense, and they look likely to be a playoff team but I'm not convinced they're a serious Super Bowl contender this year and we've seen the Vikes play competitive games against playoff-caliber teams in recent years.

I truly believe these games are going to start turning our way, and very soon. YMMV.

I've reached the "I'll believe it when I see it" point and I hate being that way but when these games started turning our way in 2012, I thought the corner had been turned and the Vikes followed that with two losing seasons and way too many close games they failed to win. I just can't bring myself to believe this performance means they're about to turn a corner again when we're less than a month removed from that embarrassing season opener.

[Mothman]

I agree they shouldn't be satisfied with losing. As Teddy said, we'll be in another game like this later in the year and we will come out on top. I loved hearing him say that. But It seemed evident to me (and I think to the players) that they are a legitimate team. You know, I've been a Vikings fan for a long time, and I'm not saying this team will win the superbowl this year, but I feel like this is the best Vikings team I've had the chance to watch. That's what made Week 1 so maddening. I know this is getting into territory some will view as hyperbolic, its not that I'm saying this team would beat the 09 team or the 98 team, but I'm saying this team has a character and substance that gives them a better chance to win it all than I've ever seen in a Vikings team. (the 98 team was small and poor against the run on defense. They were like the Manning Colts. It didn't hurt as much when you were up 30, but against better teams, with big backs, they struggled...I was never sold on the '09 team. They had a ton of holes all over the place despite Favre having his best season as a Pro.)

Wow. Well, that certainly explains some of the differences we're having in terms of our reactions to this team and this game! To me, the 2015 Vikings look like another middle-of-the-road Vikes team. I see potential. I see the chance they could become more but I don't see anything thus far that would elevate them over some of Childress' better (non-2009) teams, the many one-and-done playoff teams Green fielded, the 2004-2005 Vikings, some of the mediocre Vikes teams of the mid-'80s, or even Leslie Frazier's 2012-2013 teams (sorry, I know that will set some people off). The schemes are different, the personnel is different, strengths and weaknesses vary but to my eyes, they haven't done anything to separate themselves from that group in terms of overall quality and I suspect we're headed toward another 7-9 to 9-7 finish.

Ironically, I think the Broncos might be in the same boat. Manning has been lights out, but never (or only once--and then against rex grossman) had that offense or that team built to win on the big stage. Now, maybe they do, but they are having some growing pains. I like the chances of this Broncos team to win the Super Bowl more than I liked any team Peyton ever Quarterbacked before. A lot of his colts teams were like the 98 Vikings team: Undersized and poor against the run. At their best opportunistic with the lead, at their worst inept against the run and the pass, usually in closer games. What I'm saying is that there is something about the character of this Broncos team (and also of this Vikings team) that feels really legitimate to me. We are contesting a huge percentage of passes, putting pressure on a huge percentage of drop backs, yes the run fits aren't perfect, no the O line isn't great, no, we still have no answer opposite Harrison Smith, but its a work in progress, and championships aren't won in week 4.

True enough. They might adjust, correct and improve enough as the season goes to cover up flaws and become a serious contender by the end of the year. I'd sure love to see that happen.

I just see this team being a different caliber than they have been in a LOooooong time.

... and I don't and it's hard to tell which of us (if either) is right.

You've mentioned the 5 winnable games after the bye and I think they will tell us a lot because on paper, they really do look like winnable games. My problem with this year's Vikes is when I step back from my fandom and look at those games from the point of view of the Chiefs, Lions, Bears, Rams and Raiders, I also see 5 winnable games for those Vikes opponents. I'd be immensely disappointed (and shocked) if the Vikes went 0-5 during that stretch but I don't think 5-0 is much more likely. It's going to take some road wins and some convincing home wins against good opponents to convince me we're looking at a truly new Vikes team that's becoming a legitimate contender.

[mansquatch]

I don't know, we went into the house of the best defense in the league and played them to the wire. They made a FEW more plays than we did and that was the difference. You can nitpick the issues, and I'm sure everyone will, but the Vikings gave a great effort.

I'm not going to get down on the club for the OL when two key starters have been out all season due to injuries. In spite of that we played the Broncos to the wire. It sucks to lose that game, but we needed a few more plays on offense and few less plays from their defense. I think the OL is largely the culprit on both accounts.

Walsh missing is an issue, but fix that and we get to OT, even there with our OL, I think DEN still wins more often than not.

We can't change the OL issue and neither can the coaching staff. It's bad luck and we're stuck with it. I strongly believe that if Sullivan and Loadholt were playing, all else being equal, we probably would have won that game. The good news is that aside from Seattle, that is probably the best defense we'll see for the rest of the year.

This team is showing progress and improvement. It isn't perfect, but neither is any other team in the NFL. We've been bitten by the injury bug and it is what it is. In spite of that we lost to DEN on the road by 3 points.

[fiestavike]

... and I don't and it's hard to tell which of us (if either) is right.

You've mentioned the 5 winnable games after the bye and I think they will tell us a lot because on paper, they really do look like winnable games. My problem with this year's Vikes is when I step back from my fandom and look at those games from the point of view of the Chiefs, Lions, Bears, Rams and Raiders, I also see 5 winnable games for those Vikes opponents. I'd be immensely disappointed (and shocked) if the Vikes went 0-5 during that stretch but I don't think 5-0 is much more likely. It's going to take some road wins and some convincing home wins against good opponents to convince me we're looking at a truly new Vikes team that's becoming a legitimate contender.

That's fair. You've suffered through a few more seasons than I have and probably have a different perspective. I've been a fan since about 1990, and this is the first time I feel like this team might belong at the grown up table. We've been like precocious children a couple of times in the past, with some virtuoso talent at one position or on one side of the ball. I just feel like we're finally trying to do it the right way, establishing a physical all around football team.

I also really agree that our assessment of the Broncos is part of the difference. I think these Broncos are closer to the seattle team that smashed them in the Super Bowl, than the Broncos team who made it there two years ago.

[Just Me]

I don't much care for "moral victories" (however that's defined) either...but...

Since I doubt any team in the NFL is going to be 16-0 this year, this is the type of loss that I can accept easier than...say... our Monday Night Football debacle. We all know (or at least had a pretty good idea) that we weren't going to be a 16-0 team this year. I really get it. For those that point out this was a loss...you are absolutely correct. There are no asterisks on the teams that make the playoffs. You either win enough games, or you go home.

But to ignore the progress of this team just because it was a loss, seems to me to be a little bit myopic. Teams lose games. In fact, nearly every week, 50% of the teams lose their games (the only exception to that rule is when ties occur in the regular season). The whole purpose for these regular season games is to try to ensure that that most "deserving" teams get to compete for a championship. (OK - Enough of the Cpt. Obvious statements).

To me: How and to whom they lose games are an important indicator of the team's performance. I have reservations about the team, but not because they lost to Denver yesterday. If anything, that was a confidence builder for me. To me, the SF game is still a big question mark. To put it more simply, if we were 3-1 (with the SF loss being a win) I would say we are a "force to be reckoned with." Ironically, if we'd won yesterday, I'd still have those reservations I have now because in that 3-1 scenario, I can't wrap my arms around the fact that a mediocre team (at best - they are now 1-3) beat us in the season opener. The season is 16 games, and I'm waiting to see if we handily beat teams that we should (if we are really good or improving) before I conclude the SF game was just a "fluke."

So while I understand the "moral victory" being a hollow one, it also can be a true indicator of where this team is headed. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) we get to play a pretty consistently good team twice a year. If we're better than them, we'll beat them in both games. If we're "in their league" we'll split the series. (But even that depends on margin of victory to me. If we get blown out 42-0 at Green Bay and pull out a 26-23 OT victory at home, then I'd have to conclude we're not there yet)

If we're paper tigers, it'll be clear soon enough...

[Mothman]

That's fair. You've suffered through a few more seasons than I have and probably have a different perspective. I've been a fan since about 1990, and this is the first time I feel like this team might belong at the grown up table. We've been like precocious children a couple of times in the past, with some virtuoso talent at one position or on one side of the ball. I just feel like we're finally trying to do it the right way, establishing a physical all around football team.

I also really agree that our assessment of the Broncos is part of the difference. I think these Broncos are closer to the seattle team that smashed them in the Super Bowl, than the Broncos team who made it there two years ago.

That's definitely a big part of it. To me, they look like a team that could go one and done in the postseason...

... but the postseason is a long way off and for all I know, the Vikes will be in it and Denver won't!

For what it's worth, I think the '98 team and this year's Vikes are worlds apart. I'd expect that '98 team to mop the floor with the 2015 Vikes if they faced off, though admittedly, Peterson could have posed a real problem for the '98 defense.

Oddly enough, I think they've tried to build that "physical all around football team" a few times since the Green era but they've never been able to put it all together. Maybe this time they'll be successful.