Optimist, pessimist, or somewhere in-between?

[YikesVikes]

I think the bears will drop off. Losing Vic Fangio is a giant loss. That’s like this defense losing Zimmer. Our defense wouldn’t be the same and I can almost guarantee it wouldn’t be better than it is now. I think that happens with Chicago. I still see us losing week 4 in Chicago. We never play good there no matter how good or bad the bears are. But I still see us winning this division. The bears schedule is a little tougher than ours as well. I see us starting 4-1. Beating Atlanta, GB, Oakland and the giants and losing to Chicago.

Well, ESPN has us finishing 7-9, per their season simulation. They have Green Bay going 13-3 and securing the top seed in the NFC, while the Bears miss the playoffs. Sports Illustrated also has us not making the playoffs.

The Green Bay love is just plain baffling. This is a team that had a losing season WITH Aaron Rodgers last year, and hasn't had a winning season since 2016.

As far as I'm concerned, the Vikings are right where I like them to be -- underrated and under appreciated. Just like 2017.

Agreed. It's been 3 straight season of GB is going 13-3. Enough already.

[VikingLord]

I just realized I forgot to answer the question posed by the OP.

I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to the Vikings with a big caveat. That caveat being if they get into a big game, a game that truly matters, and they are in a situation where they need just one more play, a play that is fairly simple and almost automatic, in that situation I'm a total pessimist as they've shown an almost supernatural ability to screw up.

The list of failures in those situations speaks for itself:

- Dallas faces 4th-and-forever on a last-ditch drive, playing in the hostile, frozen confines of Minnesota's professional football grinder of the old Met in December. The Vikings defense has been suffocating all year. It's cold. The Vikings know what's coming. Dallas converts anyway and goes on to win on a play that is hotly contested even today.

- 1987 Vikings come out of nowhere to annihilate the two heavy Superbowl favorites in the first two rounds of the playoffs on the road, then go to Washington DC to face the Redskins. The game ends up playing out in typical Vikings fashion, seeing the team march down the field towards a late score that would tie the game, only for Darrin Nelson to drop a pass that would likely have done exactly that.

- 1998 Vikings... ** REDACTED DUE TO EXCESSIVE SWEAR WORDS **

- 2009 Vikings... Need a field goal to win despite an epic number of fumbles and blown chances to win the game outright prior to that. Favre masterfully drives the team to within field goal range, only to watch helplessly as the Vikings commit a too-many-men on the field penalty that takes them out of range. On the very next play the hobbled warrior rolls out to his right with Bernard Berrian running a sideline route in the same direction that would give them the yards they need to try the field goal. Favre, however, picks out Sydney Rice with a cross-body throw that is promptly picked off. Vikings go on to lose in OT after the Saints are given a very questionable first down.

I'm getting too depressed here...

Blair Walsh missing the chipshot field goal that would have pushed them on in the playoffs comes next to mind. I'm sure there are other examples of this horror as well.

But there have been few years where a season started and I looked at the Vikings roster and didn't think they were good enough to compete for the NFC North title. They had a few years where they really sucked, but for the most part, they've been consistently competitive, and this year looks like the same thing to me. They're loaded and primed for another run at it.

Should they get there at the end, however, and should it come down to a key play that more or less should be almost automatic, I'll expect them to screw it up. Not if the play is a miracle play they aren't expected to make - that could happen and they've shown an ability to make those happen. No, it has to be something fairly straightforward, and it has to be for large stakes. THAT is when the Vikings have been exceptionally consistent in disappointing everyone, including themselves.

Every new season is a chance for redemption. That's the optimist in me talking.

[mansquatch]

Well, ESPN has us finishing 7-9, per their season simulation. They have Green Bay going 13-3 and securing the top seed in the NFC, while the Bears miss the playoffs. Sports Illustrated also has us not making the playoffs.

The Green Bay love is just plain baffling. This is a team that had a losing season WITH Aaron Rodgers last year, and hasn't had a winning season since 2016.

As far as I'm concerned, the Vikings are right where I like them to be -- underrated and under appreciated. Just like 2017.

Agreed. It's been 3 straight season of GB is going 13-3. Enough already.

At one point in that 2016 season they were 4-6. Then they ran the table tanks to a typically weak schedule and got to face an equally over achieving Redskins team followed by an over-hyped Dallas squad that had no appreciable passing defense in the playoffs. Then they ran into an actual playoff team, i.e. the Falcons, and got completely destroyed. I would argue that Green Bay hasn't been a serious contender since 2014, in 2015 they lost the division to Zimmer and the Purple as well.

There is no reason to think a defense containing Mike Daniels and ??? is going to suddenly become competitive and they still haven't shown themselves to have a legitimate pass catcher outside of Adams. Then there are the rumors that Rogers doesn't like his new coach. Get ready for 0-2 Cheeseheads!

[YikesVikes]

Agreed. It's been 3 straight season of GB is going 13-3. Enough already.

At one point in that 2016 season they were 4-6. Then they ran the table tanks to a typically weak schedule and got to face an equally over achieving Redskins team followed by an over-hyped Dallas squad that had no appreciable passing defense in the playoffs. Then they ran into an actual playoff team, i.e. the Falcons, and got completely destroyed. I would argue that Green Bay hasn't been a serious contender since 2014, in 2015 they lost the division to Zimmer and the Purple as well.

There is no reason to think a defense containing Mike Daniels and ??? is going to suddenly become competitive and they still haven't shown themselves to have a legitimate pass catcher outside of Adams. Then there are the rumors that Rogers doesn't like his new coach. Get ready for 0-2 Cheeseheads!

Mike Daniels got cut. They have added some pass rushers

[mansquatch]

I hadn't followed that. They really are going to be bad on D this year unless one of those new guys really pans out. In the last few years Daniels was the best player on their Defense. (Not much competition.)

13-3, LOL. Someone needs to review their model...

[VikingLord]

Given all the talk about power rankings, I just had to start looking around for examples of how various pundits rank the Packers heading into the 2019 season.

I'll start with a draft website I respect, WalterFootball https://walterfootball.com/nflpowerrankings.php

This site has the Packers at #3. Yes, you read that right - the 2019 Packers with a new head coach, new GM, huge unknowns on both sides of the ball, that hasn't made the playoffs nor won the division in 3 seasons, is the 3rd best team in the league heading into the 2019 season. Best quote from this ranking

On the bright side, the defense will be much better with Za'Darius Smith, Preston Smith and Adrian Amos joining the team.

By contrast, WalterFootball has the Vikings at #19. I have to quote the entire pithy "analysis" this pundit gives for the Vikings.

The Vikings have improved their offensive line a bit by adding Garrett Bradbury through the draft, but their defense won't be as good without Sheldon Richardson. Ultimately, I worry about Kirk Cousins coming through in the clutch. Cousins' record against winning teams is abysmal - he's 5-25 versus teams with winning records - and I imagine he's going to choke in the final few weeks of the season, just like he does every year.

Uh, yeah... I think the word "imagine" best describes the fantasies behind his justification of the Packers' ranking.

Here's a great one - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl- ... ud-expect/

This guy is all over the Packers. Every year, in fact, by his own admission. He acknowledges there are question marks, sure, but despite fewer of them in past seasons compared to this season, he's convinced that THIS season that churn will cause all the pieces to fall into perfect alignment around Rodgers, and that is all a team like the Packers needs to get back to and win another Superbowl apparently. Favorite quote -

the reason I am not only picking the Packers to get to the Super Bowl but also win it isn't Rodgers.

It's the defense.

I think the Green Bay defense has a chance to be special this season. The additions of pass rushers Preston Smith and Za'Darius Smith will impact the front in a big way.

The rise of second-year corner Jaire Alexander into one of the best at his position will impact the secondary, along with the additions of safeties Adrian Amos and Darnell Savage.

So, the key to a better defense is changing out a bunch of defensive players with question marks for other defense players with question marks? I'm shocked he didn't predict a record rookie season for Rashan Gary...



For the Vikings, he puts them at 14th (up from 20th!) and, as if fully admitting he has not done any real analysis on anything, spouts the same tired trope that seems to be cut-and-paste into every one of these pundits who discounts the Vikings this year -

The defense will be back to its 2017 form, and I am a big believer in Dalvin Cook. But can Kirk Cousins win big games?

OK, I've got to get back to work, but there are many more examples of similar "analysis" for the upcoming season for both the Packers and the Vikings. For the pundits who rank the Packers highly, basically, the rationale is that Rodgers is great and always will be, and that all of the churn around him is simply going to fall into place and outperform any reasonable expectations, not only on offense, but on defense as well. The new coaching staff is going to hit the ground running and have no issues at all with Rodgers or the team generally, and the chaos of all that change results in magic everywhere.

The other thing that stands out about the power rankings that place the Packers high is they also tend to discount both the Bears and the Vikings, but moreso the Vikings. Almost without fail, the sole reason the Vikings get discounted is this albatross of a QB named Kirk Cousins, and it's not because he's not a good QB - it's because he "can't win big games". This drops the Vikings not just down, but usually well down the list, often into the bottom half of the overall NFL. Change, apparently, is good in the eyes of these analysts. Coming into a season with the prior team basically intact, with established effective starters on both sides of the ball and mostly established coaches, well, that isn't cause for optimism. No, a team has cause for optimism apparently if they have one star QB who has shown serious signs of a decline in his play along with an increase in his bad attitude coupled with huge turnover at all supporting levels and THAT is a recipe for NFL success.

As if we all didn't already know that!

To be fair, not all power rankings are doing this. Some even have the Vikings ranked quite high and predict success. I think it's just funny to read the almost twisted logic and bias behind the ones that rank the Packers highly.

I also know several die hard Packers fans, and I have yet to hear one talk optimistically about this upcoming season. None of them expect the defense to be that good, and all of them have serious concerns about whether Rodgers and his new head coach are going to be able to get along. Pretty much every one of them is seeing Rodgers turning into a Favre-like distraction, minus the heir apparent waiting in the wings to take over without skipping a beat.

[S197]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

[CharVike]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

Turnover at the end. That's why I preach them. But the Pack have been picking D like crazy so maybe it's starting to jell for them. Plus they kept their D cord. But the Bears can play some D also. Holding Rodgers in check is a tough task. We get our chance week 2. If we do the same we will win. If Zim lets them score 20+ then it's up for grabs. Also the Ds are ahead of the Os at this point usually.

[VikingLord]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

I was surprised the Bears seemed to give up on the run. Granted, the Packers stuffed them a couple of times, but the Bears seemed like they were moving it on the ground at a few points and then seemingly gave up and turned the ball over to Trubisky. The Packers did do a very good job of limiting the amount Trubisky could take off and run, which is something the Vikings didn't do well last year when they played the Bears, and without that ability to use his feet, Trubisky looked rattled. But in a close, defensive contest like that at home, I'm surprised the Bears didn't stick with their running game.

I do think the Packers showed some improvement on defense, especially in their pass rush and secondary play. Of course, that could be because Trubisky just had no answers when he was actually forced to play QB (love that quote by Tramon Williams IIRC), but I thought it was more because the Bears abandoned the run and allowed the Packer defense to dictate.

One other thing about Trubisky in that game is that he really played it safe. I kept waiting for the Bears to go deep and test the Packers over the top, but they seemed content to just drop back and have Trubisky survey the routes within 10-15 yards of the LOS. The deep shots Trubisky took seemed wild. He badly missed and the one that was picked was also overthrown.

[VikingLord]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

Turnover at the end. That's why I preach them. But the Pack have been picking D like crazy so maybe it's starting to jell for them. Plus they kept their D cord. But the Bears can play some D also. Holding Rodgers in check is a tough task. We get our chance week 2. If we do the same we will win. If Zim lets them score 20+ then it's up for grabs. Also the Ds are ahead of the Os at this point usually.

I thought the Packer defense looked better overall than I expected, but it could be that Chicago's offense is just that bad.

If the Vikings offense shows up against Atlanta and they look good as I expect them to, I think that will be a much better barometer for how good the Packer defense is when the two teams meet in Green Bay the following week.

[CharVike]

Turnover at the end. That's why I preach them. But the Pack have been picking D like crazy so maybe it's starting to jell for them. Plus they kept their D cord. But the Bears can play some D also. Holding Rodgers in check is a tough task. We get our chance week 2. If we do the same we will win. If Zim lets them score 20+ then it's up for grabs. Also the Ds are ahead of the Os at this point usually.

I thought the Packer defense looked better overall than I expected, but it could be that Chicago's offense is just that bad.

If the Vikings offense shows up against Atlanta and they look good as I expect them to, I think that will be a much better barometer for how good the Packer defense is when the two teams meet in Green Bay the following week.

How about the defense showing up. Then the O can just pound the ball as Zim and Kub want. We have a top 5 pass defense according to the rankings. Ryan needs to be held in check. Allow 1 TD and pick him off a couple times. Hold him under 200 yards. If Ryan shreds our top pass D then it's the same stuff. Then it will be the Cousins air show. We are at home which should help.

[9man]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

I was surprised the Bears seemed to give up on the run. Granted, the Packers stuffed them a couple of times, but the Bears seemed like they were moving it on the ground at a few points and then seemingly gave up and turned the ball over to Trubisky. The Packers did do a very good job of limiting the amount Trubisky could take off and run, which is something the Vikings didn't do well last year when they played the Bears, and without that ability to use his feet, Trubisky looked rattled. But in a close, defensive contest like that at home, I'm surprised the Bears didn't stick with their running game.

I do think the Packers showed some improvement on defense, especially in their pass rush and secondary play. Of course, that could be because Trubisky just had no answers when he was actually forced to play QB (love that quote by Tramon Williams IIRC), but I thought it was more because the Bears abandoned the run and allowed the Packer defense to dictate.

One other thing about Trubisky in that game is that he really played it safe. I kept waiting for the Bears to go deep and test the Packers over the top, but they seemed content to just drop back and have Trubisky survey the routes within 10-15 yards of the LOS. The deep shots Trubisky took seemed wild. He badly missed and the one that was picked was also overthrown.

The Bears offense has a long way to go. Trubisky does not look good. On that pick, he stared down the receiver, not looking away once.

Their rookie RB looks good but they don't trust him, not yet. Mike Davis was on the field in pass pro way more than I think they wanted.

Allen Robinson looks solid, probably their only real WR. We all know Patterson is a good return man but not much of a WR.

Also Matt Nagy's offense seems to have a high number of gadget plays. Like he is trying to hide that the offense is crap.

[J. Kapp 11]

I don’t know if the Packers D is that much improved or Trubisky is that bad. Maybe a little of both but they showed why they shouldn’t be taken lightly. Rodgers had a fair amount of time too despite a scary pass rush by the Bears.

While neither team looked particularly scary, I think this division is very much up for grabs.

I was surprised the Bears seemed to give up on the run. Granted, the Packers stuffed them a couple of times, but the Bears seemed like they were moving it on the ground at a few points and then seemingly gave up and turned the ball over to Trubisky. The Packers did do a very good job of limiting the amount Trubisky could take off and run, which is something the Vikings didn't do well last year when they played the Bears, and without that ability to use his feet, Trubisky looked rattled. But in a close, defensive contest like that at home, I'm surprised the Bears didn't stick with their running game.

I do think the Packers showed some improvement on defense, especially in their pass rush and secondary play. Of course, that could be because Trubisky just had no answers when he was actually forced to play QB (love that quote by Tramon Williams IIRC), but I thought it was more because the Bears abandoned the run and allowed the Packer defense to dictate.

One other thing about Trubisky in that game is that he really played it safe. I kept waiting for the Bears to go deep and test the Packers over the top, but they seemed content to just drop back and have Trubisky survey the routes within 10-15 yards of the LOS. The deep shots Trubisky took seemed wild. He badly missed and the one that was picked was also overthrown.

You hit the nail on the head, VL.

The Bears, with one of the best defenses in the NFL and in a one-score game, ran 15 times and passed 45.

Matt Nagy, like John DeFilippo last year, seems to be a bit too much in love with his own genius.

And Trubisky was terrible. I mean, really terrible. There were plays out there, but he simply missed them. It's all over Twitter, video of the plays he missed, and two other passes that should have been picked.

I worry about the Bears' defense, but not that offense. It's a dumpster fire.

As for the Pack, they'll do better offensively against defenses other than the Bears. But Zimmer has Rodgers' number. The key for us will be our ability to score against Green Bay. I'm not convinced that their defense is that much improved, even though they only gave up a field goad. I just thought the Bears' offense was that bad.

[StumpHunter]

I was surprised the Bears seemed to give up on the run. Granted, the Packers stuffed them a couple of times, but the Bears seemed like they were moving it on the ground at a few points and then seemingly gave up and turned the ball over to Trubisky. The Packers did do a very good job of limiting the amount Trubisky could take off and run, which is something the Vikings didn't do well last year when they played the Bears, and without that ability to use his feet, Trubisky looked rattled. But in a close, defensive contest like that at home, I'm surprised the Bears didn't stick with their running game.

I do think the Packers showed some improvement on defense, especially in their pass rush and secondary play. Of course, that could be because Trubisky just had no answers when he was actually forced to play QB (love that quote by Tramon Williams IIRC), but I thought it was more because the Bears abandoned the run and allowed the Packer defense to dictate.

One other thing about Trubisky in that game is that he really played it safe. I kept waiting for the Bears to go deep and test the Packers over the top, but they seemed content to just drop back and have Trubisky survey the routes within 10-15 yards of the LOS. The deep shots Trubisky took seemed wild. He badly missed and the one that was picked was also overthrown.

You hit the nail on the head, VL.

The Bears, with one of the best defenses in the NFL and in a one-score game, ran 15 times and passed 45.

Matt Nagy, like John DeFilippo last year, seems to be a bit too much in love with his own genius.

And Trubisky was terrible. I mean, really terrible. There were plays out there, but he simply missed them. It's all over Twitter, video of the plays he missed, and two other passes that should have been picked.

I worry about the Bears' defense, but not that offense. It's a dumpster fire.

As for the Pack, they'll do better offensively against defenses other than the Bears. But Zimmer has Rodgers' number. The key for us will be our ability to score against Green Bay. I'm not convinced that their defense is that much improved, even though they only gave up a field goad. I just thought the Bears' offense was that bad.

I think the Bears were dumb to not run it more mostly because their QB sucks. I don't hear the same complaints about the Pack not running more in that game, especially with a lead.

19 rushes called versus 14.

[CharVike]

I was surprised the Bears seemed to give up on the run. Granted, the Packers stuffed them a couple of times, but the Bears seemed like they were moving it on the ground at a few points and then seemingly gave up and turned the ball over to Trubisky. The Packers did do a very good job of limiting the amount Trubisky could take off and run, which is something the Vikings didn't do well last year when they played the Bears, and without that ability to use his feet, Trubisky looked rattled. But in a close, defensive contest like that at home, I'm surprised the Bears didn't stick with their running game.

I do think the Packers showed some improvement on defense, especially in their pass rush and secondary play. Of course, that could be because Trubisky just had no answers when he was actually forced to play QB (love that quote by Tramon Williams IIRC), but I thought it was more because the Bears abandoned the run and allowed the Packer defense to dictate.

One other thing about Trubisky in that game is that he really played it safe. I kept waiting for the Bears to go deep and test the Packers over the top, but they seemed content to just drop back and have Trubisky survey the routes within 10-15 yards of the LOS. The deep shots Trubisky took seemed wild. He badly missed and the one that was picked was also overthrown.

You hit the nail on the head, VL.

The Bears, with one of the best defenses in the NFL and in a one-score game, ran 15 times and passed 45.

Matt Nagy, like John DeFilippo last year, seems to be a bit too much in love with his own genius.

And Trubisky was terrible. I mean, really terrible. There were plays out there, but he simply missed them. It's all over Twitter, video of the plays he missed, and two other passes that should have been picked.

I worry about the Bears' defense, but not that offense. It's a dumpster fire.

As for the Pack, they'll do better offensively against defenses other than the Bears. But Zimmer has Rodgers' number. The key for us will be our ability to score against Green Bay. I'm not convinced that their defense is that much improved, even though they only gave up a field goad. I just thought the Bears' offense was that bad.

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them. If our D allows this joke to score 20 something we won't win. We don't have a chance at that point. IMO it comes down to that. I'm not sure if Zimmer has Rodgers number. He's put up some points against him and has a winning record against him. That's far from having his number. The bottom line is the Pack team blows. They have one top flight player. Without him they can't beat any team.