Vikings Message Board.Com

PacificNorseWest wrote: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.

I understand what you're saying but I just don't believe out-gaining a team is the same as outplaying a team. In my view, if the Vikes had outplayed the Saints, they would have won the game. They didn't. I know that sounds simple but without exception, I believe the team that wins a game outplayed the opponent. It doesn't matter how many yards the losing team gained or how much they dominated statistically, if they lost, they clearly didn't make enough plays to win and the opposition did.

It's just the way I look at it and I understand that not everyone takes the same approach.

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.

Agreed, but turnovers aren't just giveaways, they're also takeaways. Even if an offensive player just drops the ball, a defensive player has to be there to recover it. It doesn't matter how statistically dominant the Vikes were in that game. The Saints made the plays they had to make to win it.

Makes sense.

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

I jsut read it now. I concede his point, but the ulcers sure making my day go faster.

Love you buddy!

PacificNorseWest wrote:Makes sense.

I'm glad you think so. I realize it's a bit of a simple, "hard line" way to look at things.

mansquatch wrote:I jsut read it now. I concede his point, but the ulcers sure making my day go faster.

Love you buddy!

To compare the 2009 team to the 2013 team is silly. You are comparing a 2009 who has already proved themselves and almost made a super bowl team, to a team who has not play a single game yet together but looks good on paper.

But to answer your question, I PREDICT that the 2013 team will be stronger than the 2009. Lets not kid ourselves either, the 2009 team had talent but Favre put that team on his back. If Ponder was on that 2009 team I doubt they would even make the playoffs that year. Favre was the fuel that kept that team going. Both fans and teams were fired up. Favre also likes to call audibles, so any play he knew wouldn't work, he would switch it up and turn it into a more positive play.

This team in 2013 is different. Ponder is not a QB who will carry the team. The players around him have to perform well and so far they have. I think we have more talent at WR than we did at 2009. Peterson is no longer the fumble master like he was in 2009. We have a beast at TE. And importantly we have a KICKER in Walsh, who probably would have took us to the super bowl in 2009 with a kick instead of having Favre trying to force a pass and getting it picked off.

So yes 2013 team >>>>>>>> 2009 team.

JEC334 wrote:
But to answer your question, I PREDICT that the 2013 team will be stronger than the 2009. Lets not kid ourselves either, the 2009 team had talent but Favre put that team on his back. If Ponder was on that 2009 team I doubt they would even make the playoffs that year.

They went 10-6 and made the playoffs with Tjackson the year before, so unless you think Ponder is worse than Tjacks I think they still make it.

mondry wrote: They went 10-6 and made the playoffs with Tjackson the year before, so unless you think Ponder is worse than Tjacks I think they still make it.

At times, he has been worse. But, that '09 team would have made the playoffs without Favre. I can't prove it, but I know. lol.

I'm the biggest Jackson supporter around, but why does everyone say the Vikings made the playoffs with Tarvaris? It had more to do with Gus than it did with Tarvaris. Just sayin'...

MelanieMFunk wrote:I'm the biggest Jackson supporter around, but why does everyone say the Vikings made the playoffs with Tarvaris? It had more to do with Gus than it did with Tarvaris. Just sayin'...

I was wondering the same thing...

Mothman wrote: I was wondering the same thing...

So was I. And the sad thing is, that's the first time I've seen someone give T-Jack all the credit when it was pretty much Gus who put them in the position to get to the playoffs and probably would won more if he didn't get injured.

JEC334 wrote: So was I. And the sad thing is, that's the first time I've seen someone give T-Jack all the credit when it was pretty much Gus who put them in the position to get to the playoffs and probably would won more if he didn't get injured.

...really? On Vikings.com and WAVF it was said all the time that "T-Jack got us to the playoffs in '08" and stuff like that. First time my...butt.

Regardless, I don't think people give all the credit to Tarvaris--they just give him a little too much. But I think it's more about putting emphasis on how good our team was as a whole. And it was good--good enough to get into the playoffs without Favre. Gus, Tarvaris, Sage, etc. could have made it possible. That is the point.

Anyways, Mondry may have misspoke a tad bit, but I understand his point. And his point is right on. We were a good team without Favre! As good? Probably not. But still pretty darn good? Yes.

But in reality, the comparison should have been made between Frerotte and Ponder, and I think old Gus wins that battle. But I'm confident enough to say we still would have made the playoffs in '09 with Ponder at QB--the good Ponder that is. lol.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:Regardless I still think they win 10 again in 2009 with either Jackson or Rosenfels if Favre never shows up.

Interesting how Rosenfels never really got a shot at an actual starting role with the Vikings. And then Chili dumps the guy at a time when Sage may have been the best QB on the roster.

MelanieMFunk wrote:But in reality, the comparison should have been made between Frerotte and Ponder, and I think old Gus wins that battle.

Ouch.

losperros wrote:
Interesting how Rosenfels never really got a shot at an actual starting role with the Vikings. And then Chili dumps the guy at a time when Sage may have been the best QB on the roster.

Exactly Sage was pretty good. And like his last tenure here, he outperformed Ponder and everyone else during the preseason but somehow he gets cut, AGAIN. I think Sage would have been pretty good. We could have got him instead of Cassel for a cheaper price.

Eli wrote: Ouch.

Nothing ouchie about that.

Eli wrote: Ouch.

The truth hurts eh? )

Its is pretty sad. This year should be the year the Vikes figure out if ponders a backup or starter. Kyle in the pro bowl has shown what he can do with a god QB. Jennings has proven himself. Heck even Carlson has. The excuses have to go this year.