Other than QB are the 2013 Vikings stronger than 2009?

[losperros]

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.

Nope. Don't see it. Both teams were good but flawed. The '09 Vikings folded when it counted in December and lost their chance at HFA. Both teams blew their Championship games.

Even so, with Carter, Moss, Reed, and Cunningham on the '98 team, they had too much horsepower for the '09 team.

[Mothman]

Nope. Don't see it. Both teams were good but flawed. The '09 Vikings folded when it counted in December and lost their chance at HFA. Both teams blew their Championship games.

Even so, with Carter, Moss, Reed, and Cunningham on the '98 team, they had too much horsepower for the '09 team.

Don't forget Robert Smith!

[PurpleMustReign]

I think the 1998 team is by far the best since the 70s. I didnt see the 70s because i wasn't born yet, but the highlights are damn impressive. 2009 couldnt hold 1998s jock, imo.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

[jackal]

I think this team has the potential to surpass the 2009 if Ponder gets better but I am guessing only with
two more good drafts and maybe a free agent or two

[PacificNorseWest]

Maybe you guys are right (we can never know), but I would take the '09 Vikings offense at the least, over '98. You can't go wrong with the Favre, AP, Sidney, and Harvin. They got tons of production from Shiancoe as well. A full complementary offense and more all-around than in 1998.

Jake Reed was on that team, but it's not like he was producing like he did the years before. Not even close, really (only played 11 games though). And Andrew Jordan wasn't on Shiancoe's level. It was pretty much the Randy and CC show with a little Robert in between. The '09 hit your from everywhere and had amazing balance. And I'd take Percy as a KR over Palmer, even though I loved that little ####.

[losperros]

Maybe you guys are right (we can never know), but I would take the '09 Vikings offense at the least, over '98. You can't go wrong with the Favre, AP, Sidney, and Harvin.

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. The '09 team was overrated back then. They still are now.

I thought Cunningham did just as much as a QB in '98 as Favre eventually did in '09. Robert Smith was highly underrated and blazing fast, but Adrian Peterson is the best. However, as much as I respect the skills of both Harvin and Rice, they aren't Moss and Carter. No way.

[PacificNorseWest]

And '98 team went wrong too though, bad word usage on my part, but that's not separating the two offenses. I don't see overrated at all. That team was a bona fide juggernaut. They completely outplayed the Saints that day in the NFCCG. Everyone loves to point the finger at Favre, but I think most the blame goes on Peterson and the fumbles in that game.

The best team on the field in Atlanta back in '98 won the game. Not so in '09. And I don't say that much in terms of teams truly losing a game, but the Vikings were clearly better in terms of how easy they were moving up and down that field. Turnovers kill.

No one is underrating Robert Smith...At all. As for the balance...Just go look at the numbers. Moss and Carter accounted for probably around 90% of that teams passing offense and if you include Smith then 75% of their offense as a whole. In '09 the receptions were so much more balanced and they still had a great running game and better return game. There's no debating the WR tandems of the two years, but there's more to the offense then that.

[Mothman]

Maybe you guys are right (we can never know), but I would take the '09 Vikings offense at the least, over '98. You can't go wrong with the Favre, AP, Sidney, and Harvin. They got tons of production from Shiancoe as well. A full complementary offense and more all-around than in 1998.

No offense but that seems like an odd choice since the '98 Vikings finished that season as the most prolific scoring offense of all time.

Jake Reed was on that team, but it's not like he was producing like he did the years before. Not even close, really (only played 11 games though). And Andrew Jordan wasn't on Shiancoe's level. It was pretty much the Randy and CC show with a little Robert in between. The '09 hit your from everywhere and had amazing balance.

You mean Andrew Glover.

I'd argue that the '98 team was just as balanced. Smith and Hoard combined for over 1600 yards rushing, over 2100 yards in total offense and 18 TDs so it wasn't just the CC and Moss show with a little Robert in between. The running backs were extremely productive. I still think AD and Taylor were a superior pair of backs but Smith and Hoard were a big part of that '98 offense.

I love Adrian Peterson but for me, it's no contest. I'd take the '98 offense. It was the #1 reason that team was so good.

And I'd take Percy as a KR over Palmer, even though I loved that little ####.

LOL! I would too.

[dead_poet]

I love Adrian Peterson but for me, it's no contest. I'd take the '98 offense. It was the #1 reason that team was so good.

Fun thought: Adrian Peterson on the 1998 Vikings.

Edit: like his is today, not as a 13 year-old.

[Mothman]

And '98 team went wrong too though, bad word usage on my part, but that's not separating the two offenses. I don't see overrated at all. That team was a bona fide juggernaut. They completely outplayed the Saints that day in the NFCCG. Everyone loves to point the finger at Favre, but I think most the blame goes on Peterson and the fumbles in that game.

You've touched on a pet peeve of mine. People repeatedly blame Peterson's fumbles for that loss but it's a case where perception doesn't match reality. Favre turned it over as many times as Peterson in that game (officially, he turned it over more) and red zone fumbles by Berrian and Harvin were both killers.

Peterson's first fumble was credited to Favre and came on the dropped handoff exchange deep in Saints territory. That hurt. It likely cost the Vikes points.
He recovered his second fumble. The Vikings picked up a first down 2 plays later. That fumble didn't hurt them at all.
He recovered his third fumble for a first down. That play helped the team.

Favre threw an INT on 2nd and 8 from the NO 34, a play that likely cost the Vikes points. We all remember his second costly INT in that game.
Harvin fumbled a punt deep in Vikes territory and NO recovered it at the 7. That led to a Saints score.
Berrian fumbled the ball at the NO 10 and NO recovered it. Again, that probably cost the Vikes points.

I think it's impossible to make a convincing case that Peterson's fumbles were a primary reason the Vikings lost that game. Only one of them even hurt the team.

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.

The best team on the field in Atlanta back in '98 won the game. Not so in '09.

Sure they did. There's just a lot of denial about it.

[mansquatch]

About the talk of all the turnovers in the Saints game! I didn't like any of them and it sure didn't help our cause, and that is winning the game. The simple truth about the whole thing is despite all those awful turnovers they didn't cost us the game either. it's so simple really! the game ended in a tie. Yes it is a fact limited 1 turnover that led to points for the Saints and we would have won. Those turnovers kept us from winning, but they didn't cost us the win either. What cost us the game came in OT.

Those turnovers certainly did cost us the game. They cost us opportunities to score points, whether TD or Longwell fieldgoals. Our D shut the Saints down. If we had not committed even one of those turnovers we would have kicked a field goal and never gone to OT. Everyone harps on Favre for that game, but the real culprit was AP's fumbles. Favre's INT was just the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

[dead_poet]

Everyone harps on Favre for that game, but the real culprit was AP's fumbles.

Did you read Jim's post or are you trying to give him an ulcer via message board postings?

[Mothman]

Those turnovers certainly did cost us the game. They cost us opportunities to score points, whether TD or Longwell fieldgoals. Our D shut the Saints down. If we had not committed even one of those turnovers we would have kicked a field goal and never gone to OT. Everyone harps on Favre for that game, but the real culprit was AP's fumbles. Favre's INT was just the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

Did you read Jim's post or are you trying to give him an ulcer via message board postings?

If he is, it's working!

Honestly, this perception that AD's fumbles cost the Vikings that game reveals a lot about how much the emotions we experience when watching football impact what we think actually happened. I'm sure a lot of Vikings fans were extremely aggravated by those fumbles and that aggravation seems to have translated, in the minds of many, into a level of impact that simply never occurred. The only fumble AD had in that game that had any real impact on the outcome was the fumble that wasn't even attributed to him in the official stats and yet this myth that he cost them the game continues.

[Mothman]

Harvin fumbled a reverse as well, IIRC. I think he dropped the pitch.

The whole offense played like they greased up their hands before the game.

[PacificNorseWest]

The debate can rage on about which team was better (I think it can, at least), but I still find one thing that can't be argued, and sorry Jim, the Vikings outplayed the Saints that day. In 1998, the Vikings can play the Falcons 100 times, and 99 times they probably win. On that day though..The Falcons were better. I cannot say the same for 2009. Whether the Fumble near the goal line is Favre or AP..It cost them points. Percy's fumble led to a Saints TD. That's possibly a 14 point swing. At minimum, 10. Turnovers is the one thing that can balance out an otherwise dominate performance if the team dominating turns it over that many times.