Vikings Message Board.Com

I like the coaching staff. I just don't know if we have the player personnel for scheme they want to run.

I was at the game against Arizona in TCF Bank, one thing that bugged me on the offensive side was how none of the receivers were selling their routes. Guys were staring at the field spots where they were going to make their cuts. The guys that were suppose to be running the clearing routes didn't bother to look back at the QB, they were just going to run straight ahead.

On defense, the secondary still has a tendency to over pursue. On one play, a AZ receiver ran a slant route and both SS and CB cave inside leaving the sideline wide open for the RB for the QB's hot read. The LB had no chance against the RB in an open field, ended being 30 yard gain. This happen 2 or 3 times if I can remember.

Anyway, I'll cross my fingers and hope to be eating crow this season.

808vikingsfan wrote:Does an undefeated preseason lead to a winning record in the regular season? No! In the last ten seasons only 42% of the teams that finished the preseason undefeated, went on to have winning records in the regular season.
Undefeated in the Preseason

And that stat means nothing to me. In fact, it means less than nothing. It's the past, and it has no correlation to now.

How many preseason games are won or lost by the shock troops at the end of games? If you're going to say that good performance guarantees nothing, then it guarantees NOTHING, including that a 4-0 team will struggle.

Case in point. In the Vikings' history, they've gone 4-0 in the preseason four times, including this year. In the three previous times, they made the playoffs twice. Does that mean we have a 67% chance this year? Not even close.

That being said, it's not incorrect to analyze the preseason, but if you're going to do it, you have to go deeper than "X team went undefeated preseason in 1994, then lost 12 games." Here's my analysis, for what it's worth:

• The Vikings played disciplined football. In a preseason where a monumental number of penalties were called, the Vikings were whistled for easily the fewest in the NFL. That's something that can carry over to the regular season and often contributes heavily to wins (or losses).

• The Vikings created turnovers and took care of the ball, finishing with a +5 turnover ratio. That's a clear indication that the new staff is emphasizing it, which is something that can carry over to the regular season.

• The Vikings' regulars played well. In three of the Vikings' wins, the starters set the tone and seriously outplayed the other teams' regulars. Against the Cardinals, it was virtually a draw between the regulars. Basically, this wasn't a case that our first team stunk, then our backups beat their backups.

• The Vikings' quarterbacks were sharp, and in sync with their receivers. With a new offensive coordinator, that's not easy to accomplish.

• It's far too early to tell whether our defense will hold up to the onslaught of quality quarterbacks we'll face over the first couple of months, but there are good signs. The defensive backfield definitely seemed to be an area of much-needed improvement. They covered better, and played the ball better than at any time last year. Under Frazier, we saw a lot of soft coverage, allow the completion, then wrap up (mostly wrap up ... not always). Under Zimmer, they're covering tighter and challenging the ball. I think that's what you have to do with guys like Brees and Rodgers. Don't let them be so comfortable.

• Special teams were excellent.

• On the contrary side, we didn't play quality opposition. Kansas City was a playoff team last year, but they went 2-6 down the stretch after a 9-0 start, and they're struggling in a huge way offensively. The Cardinals were probably our toughest foe.

Obviously, this is a glass-half-full analysis, but that's honestly what I saw. Of course, there's no telling how these things will carry over to the regular season, but I like the signs. Really don't care what some team did 15 years ago.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: And that stat means nothing to me. In fact, it means less than nothing. It's the past, and it has no correlation to now.

How many preseason games are won or lost by the shock troops at the end of games? If you're going to say that good performance guarantees nothing, then it guarantees NOTHING, including that a 4-0 team will struggle.

Case in point. In the Vikings' history, they've gone 4-0 in the preseason four times, including this year. In the three previous times, they made the playoffs twice. Does that mean we have a 67% chance this year? Not even close.

That being said, it's not incorrect to analyze the preseason, but if you're going to do it, you have to go deeper than "X team went undefeated preseason in 1994, then lost 12 games." Here's my analysis, for what it's worth:

• The Vikings played disciplined football. In a preseason where a monumental number of penalties were called, the Vikings were whistled for easily the fewest in the NFL. That's something that can carry over to the regular season and often contributes heavily to wins (or losses).

• The Vikings created turnovers and took care of the ball, finishing with a +5 turnover ratio. That's a clear indication that the new staff is emphasizing it, which is something that can carry over to the regular season.

• The Vikings' regulars played well. In three of the Vikings' wins, the starters set the tone and seriously outplayed the other teams' regulars. Against the Cardinals, it was virtually a draw between the regulars. Basically, this wasn't a case that our first team stunk, then our backups beat their backups.

• The Vikings' quarterbacks were sharp, and in sync with their receivers. With a new offensive coordinator, that's not easy to accomplish.

• It's far too early to tell whether our defense will hold up to the onslaught of quality quarterbacks we'll face over the first couple of months, but there are good signs. The defensive backfield definitely seemed to be an area of much-needed improvement. They covered better, and played the ball better than at any time last year. Under Frazier, we saw a lot of soft coverage, allow the completion, then wrap up (mostly wrap up ... not always). Under Zimmer, they're covering tighter and challenging the ball. I think that's what you have to do with guys like Brees and Rodgers. Don't let them be so comfortable.

• Special teams were excellent.

• On the contrary side, we didn't play quality opposition. Kansas City was a playoff team last year, but they went 2-6 down the stretch after a 9-0 start, and they're struggling in a huge way offensively. The Cardinals were probably our toughest foe.

Obviously, this is a glass-half-full analysis, but that's honestly what I saw. Of course, there's no telling how these things will carry over to the regular season, but I like the signs. Really don't care what some team did 15 years ago.

Excellent points J.Kapp.

One thing I am wondering is how much more of the playbook we will see in the regular season? I was pretty impressed with our play calling this preseason, but I am sure we didn't see the total package. This offense has the potential to be very fun to watch if everyone does their job. The same goes for the defense. I hope the days of conservative defense are gone.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:One thing I am wondering is how much more of the playbook we will see in the regular season?

I think we'll see significantly more of the playbook during the regular season. Norv isn't known for showing too much in the preseason.

Excellent list Kapp! I think you summed up the preseason very well, and I think you summarized why many of us feel optimistic. It's not about the record, it's about the product we saw on the field.

GBFavreFan wrote:
That's a simplistic conclusion to say what they would've done with Rodgers. The issues with GB were more than just QB. And they also played some tough teams during that stretch, and they hardly looked dominant when he was there. The closest way to know how the Packers would've done last year will be how they do in 2014, now that the QB position has been stabilized. Otherwise the Packers are fueled by an incredible amount of media hype which has a lot of influence, but the actual results end up being immediate playoff eliminations, drafts filled with players that do nothing, and a weaker record every single year.

I wouldn't even have bothered replying to this but I didn't appreciate your "devoid of common sense" line.

Let's put it this way: Aaron Rodgers is at minimum a Top 5 QB in the league and his backups weren't in the Top 40. It's very likely that if Rodgers was never hurt, the Packers at least beat us and probably win another game.

GBFavreFan wrote: I have to say I'm sorry man, but that is sort of a lame attitude to have on this sort of thing. If speculation doesn't mean a darn thing until the real games are played, then why does the NFL network run 365 days a year and why do sports media run 365 days a year. According to you, sports shows should run 17 times a season, where they report the statistics of the games that were played only, and a sign off, of we'll see you next week when the games are finished and not a minute earlier, because any analysis we give is just interpretation and any conclusions we draw from our analysis "don't mean a darn thing" until the next game is played.

According to you the preseason means nothing either, so why do they even bother? I guess the rest of the world are complete fools for even watching. I guess if the Vikings go 6-2, you would also say those 8 games don't mean a darn thing until they finish the season right? And then we make the playoffs and we get excited to make a Super Bowl run, and you're like, none of this speculation on the Vikings means a darn thing until the games happen. And then when we win a NFC championship, you say, none of this means a darn thing until they win the Super Bowl.

Mothman, sports is not a science experiment. Sports is not a computer program. It is a living breathing entity that is SO MUCH LARGER than the 60 minutes on the field that you profess is the only thing that matters. All sports is based on celebrating, analyzing, planning, and dissecting every aspect of the sport from a 1,000 different angles. The game is the peak and results of this process, but it is not the entire process. But most importantly, sports is not about the result. If sports was only about the result, then there would be ritual suicides from 31 different markets of the US, every February. Thankfully the majority of us don't view sports as soul-less as you, and appreciate that predictions and "declarations" are an essential part of the sports observer experience, and they DO mean a darn thing.

And most importantly, if none of this means a darn thing until the games are played, then why do you post more on this board than any other Viking fan from January through August, WHEN NO GAMES ARE PLAYED!!!

Heck, speculation is half the fun of the NFL! Especially if it's optimistic like many of your takes. Love it.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: And that stat means nothing to me. In fact, it means less than nothing. It's the past, and it has no correlation to now.

How many preseason games are won or lost by the shock troops at the end of games? If you're going to say that good performance guarantees nothing, then it guarantees NOTHING, including that a 4-0 team will struggle.

Case in point. In the Vikings' history, they've gone 4-0 in the preseason four times, including this year. In the three previous times, they made the playoffs twice. Does that mean we have a 67% chance this year? Not even close.

That being said, it's not incorrect to analyze the preseason, but if you're going to do it, you have to go deeper than "X team went undefeated preseason in 1994, then lost 12 games." Here's my analysis, for what it's worth:

• The Vikings played disciplined football. In a preseason where a monumental number of penalties were called, the Vikings were whistled for easily the fewest in the NFL. That's something that can carry over to the regular season and often contributes heavily to wins (or losses).

• The Vikings created turnovers and took care of the ball, finishing with a +5 turnover ratio. That's a clear indication that the new staff is emphasizing it, which is something that can carry over to the regular season.

• The Vikings' regulars played well. In three of the Vikings' wins, the starters set the tone and seriously outplayed the other teams' regulars. Against the Cardinals, it was virtually a draw between the regulars. Basically, this wasn't a case that our first team stunk, then our backups beat their backups.

• The Vikings' quarterbacks were sharp, and in sync with their receivers. With a new offensive coordinator, that's not easy to accomplish.

• It's far too early to tell whether our defense will hold up to the onslaught of quality quarterbacks we'll face over the first couple of months, but there are good signs. The defensive backfield definitely seemed to be an area of much-needed improvement. They covered better, and played the ball better than at any time last year. Under Frazier, we saw a lot of soft coverage, allow the completion, then wrap up (mostly wrap up ... not always). Under Zimmer, they're covering tighter and challenging the ball. I think that's what you have to do with guys like Brees and Rodgers. Don't let them be so comfortable.

• Special teams were excellent.

• On the contrary side, we didn't play quality opposition. Kansas City was a playoff team last year, but they went 2-6 down the stretch after a 9-0 start, and they're struggling in a huge way offensively. The Cardinals were probably our toughest foe.

Obviously, this is a glass-half-full analysis, but that's honestly what I saw. Of course, there's no telling how these things will carry over to the regular season, but I like the signs. Really don't care what some team did 15 years ago.

Great post. I shook my head affirmatively all the way through.

GBFavreFan wrote: I have to say I'm sorry man, but that is sort of a lame attitude to have on this sort of thing. If speculation doesn't mean a darn thing until the real games are played, then why does the NFL network run 365 days a year and why do sports media run 365 days a year. According to you, sports shows should run 17 times a season, where they report the statistics of the games that were played only, and a sign off, of we'll see you next week when the games are finished and not a minute earlier, because any analysis we give is just interpretation and any conclusions we draw from our analysis "don't mean a darn thing" until the next game is played.

According to you the preseason means nothing either, so why do they even bother? I guess the rest of the world are complete fools for even watching. I guess if the Vikings go 6-2, you would also say those 8 games don't mean a darn thing until they finish the season right? And then we make the playoffs and we get excited to make a Super Bowl run, and you're like, none of this speculation on the Vikings means a darn thing until the games happen. And then when we win a NFC championship, you say, none of this means a darn thing until they win the Super Bowl.

Mothman, sports is not a science experiment. Sports is not a computer program. It is a living breathing entity that is SO MUCH LARGER than the 60 minutes on the field that you profess is the only thing that matters. All sports is based on celebrating, analyzing, planning, and dissecting every aspect of the sport from a 1,000 different angles. The game is the peak and results of this process, but it is not the entire process. But most importantly, sports is not about the result. If sports was only about the result, then there would be ritual suicides from 31 different markets of the US, every February. Thankfully the majority of us don't view sports as soul-less as you, and appreciate that predictions and "declarations" are an essential part of the sports observer experience, and they DO mean a darn thing.

And most importantly, if none of this means a darn thing until the games are played, then why do you post more on this board than any other Viking fan from January through August, WHEN NO GAMES ARE PLAYED!!!

Moth's prudent and cautious approach seems to really irk a certain contingent on this board. I perceive you two as opposite ends of the spectrum, so it's no surprise that seeing eye to eye is difficult. Let's be decent to one another, though. We are all cheering for the same team, after all.

GBFavreFan wrote:I have to say I'm sorry man, but that is sort of a lame attitude to have on this sort of thing. If speculation doesn't mean a darn thing until the real games are played, then why does the NFL network run 365 days a year and why do sports media run 365 days a year.

Because it's entertaining.

According to you, sports shows should run 17 times a season, where they report the statistics of the games that were played only, and a sign off, of we'll see you next week when the games are finished and not a minute earlier, because any analysis we give is just interpretation and any conclusions we draw from our analysis "don't mean a darn thing" until the next game is played.

According to you the preseason means nothing either, so why do they even bother? I guess the rest of the world are complete fools for even watching. I guess if the Vikings go 6-2, you would also say those 8 games don't mean a darn thing until they finish the season right? And then we make the playoffs and we get excited to make a Super Bowl run, and you're like, none of this speculation on the Vikings means a darn thing until the games happen. And then when we win a NFC championship, you say, none of this means a darn thing until they win the Super Bowl.

Mothman, sports is not a science experiment. Sports is not a computer program. It is a living breathing entity that is SO MUCH LARGER than the 60 minutes on the field that you profess is the only thing that matters. All sports is based on celebrating, analyzing, planning, and dissecting every aspect of the sport from a 1,000 different angles. The game is the peak and results of this process, but it is not the entire process. But most importantly, sports is not about the result. If sports was only about the result, then there would be ritual suicides from 31 different markets of the US, every February. Thankfully the majority of us don't view sports as soul-less as you, and appreciate that predictions and "declarations" are an essential part of the sports observer experience, and they DO mean a darn thing

You just spent several paragraphs putting a lot of words in my mouth and attributing a bunch of opinions I don't hold to me. I've asked you not to do that in the past and I'm asking again, as nicely as I can: please stop it. If you want to dispute or debate a point I've made, stay on point, but please don't presume to tell me what I think.

I don't view sports as "soulless" and I certainly didn't need your lecture about them. I also didn't say you or anybody else couldn't, or shouldn't, speculate about what will happen. Making predictions, guessing outcomes, etc. is fun. I enjoy doing it too but it IS just guesswork. That observation is not a condemnation. I value the actual, meaningful games, the games that determine who reaches the postseason and who wins the Super Bowl, more than all the talk and coverage because the games are the core of the whole shebang. All the fan talk, media coverage, etc, just revolves around that core so I make no apologies for finding the games more significant than the rest of it. I doubt I'm alone in that viewpoint.

Regarding preseason: history has shown again and again that preseason outcomes are not a reliable indicator of what's to come in the regular season. That doesn't mean the preseason has no purpose.I think it does but the games don't count so in a very literal sense, they're meaningless. Every team will go into next week's games with a 0-0 record.

And most importantly, if none of this means a darn thing until the games are played, then why do you post more on this board than any other Viking fan from January through August, WHEN NO GAMES ARE PLAYED!!!

Maybe if you'd thought about that question a little harder, you wouldn't have posted half of what you did above.

Mothman wrote: You just spent several paragraphs putting a lot of words in my mouth and attributing a bunch of opinions I don't hold to me. I've asked you not to do that in the past and I'm asking again, as nicely as I can: please stop it. If you want to dispute or debate a point I've made, stay on point, but please don't presume to tell me what I think.

I don't view sports as "soulless" and I certainly didn't need your lecture about them. I also didn't say you or anybody else couldn't, or shouldn't, speculate about what will happen. Making predictions, guessing outcomes, etc. is fun. I enjoy doing it too but it IS just guesswork. That observation is not a condemnation. I value the actual, meaningful games, the games that determine who reaches the postseason and who wins the Super Bowl, more than all the talk and coverage because the games are the core of the whole shebang. All the fan talk, media coverage, etc, just revolves around that core so I make no apologies for finding the games more significant than the rest of it. I doubt I'm alone in that viewpoint.

Regarding preseason: history has shown again and again that preseason outcomes are not a reliable indicator of what's to come in the regular season. That doesn't mean the preseason has no purpose.I think it does but the games don't count so in a very literal sense, they're meaningless. Every team will go into next week's games with a 0-0 record.

Maybe if you'd thought about that question a little harder, you wouldn't have posted half of what you did above.

Yikes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas Vike wrote:Moth's prudent and cautious approach seems to really irk a certain contingent on this board. I perceive you two as opposite ends of the spectrum, so it's no surprise that seeing eye to eye is difficult. Let's be decent to one another, though. We are all cheering for the same team, after all.

I mean no offense to GBFavreFan but every time I see him make a post like that, and attribute a bunch views to me that don't come close to actually reflecting how I think, it drives home that whatever his view of me is, it's very different from who I actually am. I wish I knew how to convey a little more of the latter to him. Maybe that wouldn't help.

Perhaps this will: my "prudent and cautious approach" is borne out of decades of being more like the enthusiastic, extremely optimistic, fan GBFavreFan appears to be and being stung repeatedly when the Vikings disappointed me again and again. It's also a reaction to years of reading extreme opinions in one direction or another online and hearing them on talk radio. At some point, I became more interested in the nuances of the game and the more spirited, elated, angry extremes I heard and read, the more I drifted away from those extremes. I still enjoy the speculation and like most fans, I make predictions, but I make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions because at this point in my life, I find I enjoy football more by not doing so.

I don't know... I made a post earlier in this thread saying how I wished I was feeling the confidence GBFavreFan is feeling about the Vikings and I expressed how fired up I am for this season and I still got blasted, lectured and accused of seeing football as soulless.

Texas Vike wrote:Great post. I shook my head affirmatively all the way through.

They have a pill for that...

Mothman wrote: I mean no offense to GBFavreFan but every time I see him make a post like that, and attribute a bunch views to me that don't come close to actually reflecting how I think, it drives home that whatever his view of me is, it's very different from who I actually am. I wish I knew how to convey a little more of the latter to him. Maybe that wouldn't help.

Perhaps this will: my "prudent and cautious approach" is borne out of decades of being more like the enthusiastic, extremely optimistic, fan GBFavreFan appears to be and being stung repeatedly when the Vikings disappointed me again and again. It's also a reaction to years of reading extreme opinions in one direction or another online and hearing them on talk radio. At some point, I became more interested in the nuances of the game and the more of the spirited, elated, angry extremes I heard and read, the more I drifted away from those extremes. I still enjoy the speculation and like most fans, I make predictions, but I make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions because at this point in my life, I find I enjoy football more by not doing so.

I don't know... I made a post earlier in this thread saying how I wished I was feeling the confidence GBFavreFan is feeling about the Vikings and I expressed how fired up I am for this season and I still got blasted, lectured and accused of seeing football as soulless.

Yes, and I don't think it was fair, so I asked that GBFarve be decent to his Viking brethren. Just to be clear, I see prudence and caution as virtues. You are very level headed and measured in your takes and for some reason it seems to frustrate some of the posters that like to be a bit "looser" with their interpretations. I suspect they are younger and more disposed to speculate and also, unfortunately, to make ad hominem attacks.

Mothman wrote:You just spent several paragraphs putting a lot of words in my mouth and attributing a bunch of opinions I don't hold to me. I've asked you not to do that in the past and I'm asking again, as nicely as I can: please stop it. If you want to dispute or debate a point I've made, stay on point, but please don't presume to tell me what I think.

I don't view sports as "soulless" and I certainly didn't need your lecture about them. I also didn't say you or anybody else couldn't, or shouldn't, speculate about what will happen. Making predictions, guessing outcomes, etc. is fun. I enjoy doing it too but it IS just guesswork. That observation is not a condemnation. I value the actual, meaningful games, the games that determine who reaches the postseason and who wins the Super Bowl, more than all the talk and coverage because the games are the core of the whole shebang. All the fan talk, media coverage, etc, just revolves around that core so I make no apologies for finding the games more significant than the rest of it. I doubt I'm alone in that viewpoint.

Regarding preseason: history has shown again and again that preseason outcomes are not a reliable indicator of what's to come in the regular season. That doesn't mean the preseason has no purpose.I think it does but the games don't count so in a very literal sense, they're meaningless. Every team will go into next week's games with a 0-0 record.