Vikings Message Board.Com

mansquatch wrote:
Am I the only one who is loving how the media is once again giving us zero respect this season? I've heard Seattle as a playoff / SB favorite. Apparently they forget that they only reason they went to the divisional round last season was because Walsh missed a game winner.

BRING. IT. ON.

One article on ESPN had the Steelers beating the Packers in the SB

autobon7 wrote: One article on ESPN had the Steelers beating the Packers in the SB

Neither of those predictions seem far fetched, except for the Steelers being able to beat the Packers.

mansquatch wrote: I've heard Seattle as a playoff / SB favorite. Apparently they forget that they only reason they went to the divisional round last season was because Walsh missed a game winner.

You do you really think one close Victory in the playoffs makes the Seahawks not a contender? Furthermore, had you won the game on a Walsh field goal, how would that have been any more impressive then them winning on a botched kick?

Honestly, I've heard little but respect for the Vikings in the media lately. The opinion that they're a playoff contender seems almost universal, despite the QB situation. I don't think we can reasonably expect many people to pick them as conference winners yet. I understand why they aren't commonly held up as likely division winners either. They won last year in a close race but GB has the better track record in recent years (not to mention Aaron Rodgers).

The PIT/GB thing is silly to me, but not unexpected. My question for the reporters: Why should we believe that even though the past 5 superbowls were won by elite defensive teams that this will be the year of the offense?

As for GB. I have no doubt they will be a playoff team and a challenge for us. I expect we will most likely split our games with them once again.

However, in terms of a SB win, I really don't see the hype. As we've seen in every season since 2010, when the Packers get into the playoffs they make a nice run, but inevitable they face a balanced team with an great to elite defenses and they cannot take the next step. My question to those who want to pick them for the SB is why they think this squad will be different in that respect?

Looking at the changes from 2015 to 2016, I feel like there really are not any meaningful changes. Jordy Nelson was on those many teams that floundered against elite defenses in the playoffs, basically every season from 2011 through 2014. Is he, coming off a knee injury, suddenly that much better? Is the Defense suddenly a vast improvement over the past few years to justify such a projection? Is Eddie Lacy, sans a few pounds suddenly an offensive juggernaut after spending so much of last year on the bench? Is their OL without Sitton so much better? Is the Coaching staff all of a sudden better than those previous teams with McCarthy calling the plays. (He called them in 2011-2014 also) There is no reason to think that the answer to any of these questions is yes, so with GB, the only question that really matters (as usual) is if Aaron Rogers enough to get them over the top? Given their recent history and defensive dominance in the superbowl, I'm skeptical.

For those who say look what they did in the playoffs last year despite being banged up, consider they had the easiest opponent in the Wild Card round via a WSH team that limped into the playoffs after winning the weakest division in the NFC. They then played an AZ team, a team much like themselves built mostly on offense and a "good enough" defense. That same AZ team went to Carolina the following week and was utterly humiliated in the worst NFCCG performance since the wonderful Vikings experience in 2001.

So again I ask, why are these offensive juggernauts the favorites? Why is 2016 going to be different?

mansquatch wrote:The PIT/GB thing is silly to me, but not unexpected. My question for the reporters: Why should we believe that even though the past 5 superbowls were won by elite defensive teams that this will be the year of the offense?

As for GB. I have no doubt they will be a playoff team and a challenge for us. I expect we will most likely split our games with them once again.

However, in terms of a SB win, I really don't see the hype. As we've seen in every season since 2010, when the Packers get into the playoffs they make a nice run, but inevitable they face a balanced team with an great to elite defenses and they cannot take the next step. My question to those who want to pick them for the SB is why they think this squad will be different in that respect?

Looking at the changes from 2015 to 2016, I feel like there really are not any meaningful changes. Jordy Nelson was on those many teams that floundered against elite defenses in the playoffs, basically every season from 2011 through 2014. Is he, coming off a knee injury, suddenly that much better? Is the Defense suddenly a vast improvement over the past few years to justify such a projection? Is Eddie Lacy, sans a few pounds suddenly an offensive juggernaut after spending so much of last year on the bench? Is their OL without Sitton so much better? Is the Coaching staff all of a sudden better than those previous teams with McCarthy calling the plays. (He called them in 2011-2014 also) There is no reason to think that the answer to any of these questions is yes, so with GB, the only question that really matters (as usual) is if Aaron Rogers enough to get them over the top? Given their recent history and defensive dominance in the superbowl, I'm skeptical.

For those who say look what they did in the playoffs last year despite being banged up, consider they had the easiest opponent in the Wild Card round via a WSH team that limped into the playoffs after winning the weakest division in the NFC. They then played an AZ team, a team much like themselves built mostly on offense and a "good enough" defense. That same AZ team went to Carolina the following week and was utterly humiliated in the worst NFCCG performance since the wonderful Vikings experience in 2001.

So again I ask, why are these offensive juggernauts the favorites? Why is 2016 going to be different?

Nice post. I'm sure someone around here will have an "answer" to your questions.

Mothman wrote:Honestly, I've heard little but respect for the Vikings in the media lately. The opinion that they're a playoff contender seems almost universal, despite the QB situation. I don't think we can reasonably expect many people to pick them as conference winners yet. I understand why they aren't commonly held up as likely division winners either. They won last year in a close race but GB has the better track record in recent years (not to mention Aaron Rodgers).

Last night on "Inside the NFL", Brandon Marshall talked about how the Vikings are more dangerous now with Bradford than they were with Bridgewater. I tend to believe current players more than analysts/experts so that was cool to hear. I think his sentiment was that they are now in win-now mode as opposed to waiting another couple years for Teddy to become a better QB.

Mothman wrote:Sam Bradford's task with Vikings is like learning a new language
More at the link. It's a good, informative read.

Maybe we can borrow Musgrave's sheet for a game?

mansquatch wrote:The PIT/GB thing is silly to me, but not unexpected. My question for the reporters: Why should we believe that even though the past 5 superbowls were won by elite defensive teams that this will be the year of the offense?

As for GB. I have no doubt they will be a playoff team and a challenge for us. I expect we will most likely split our games with them once again.

However, in terms of a SB win, I really don't see the hype. As we've seen in every season since 2010, when the Packers get into the playoffs they make a nice run, but inevitable they face a balanced team with an great to elite defenses and they cannot take the next step. My question to those who want to pick them for the SB is why they think this squad will be different in that respect?

Looking at the changes from 2015 to 2016, I feel like there really are not any meaningful changes. Jordy Nelson was on those many teams that floundered against elite defenses in the playoffs, basically every season from 2011 through 2014. Is he, coming off a knee injury, suddenly that much better? Is the Defense suddenly a vast improvement over the past few years to justify such a projection? Is Eddie Lacy, sans a few pounds suddenly an offensive juggernaut after spending so much of last year on the bench? Is their OL without Sitton so much better? Is the Coaching staff all of a sudden better than those previous teams with McCarthy calling the plays. (He called them in 2011-2014 also) There is no reason to think that the answer to any of these questions is yes, so with GB, the only question that really matters (as usual) is if Aaron Rogers enough to get them over the top? Given their recent history and defensive dominance in the superbowl, I'm skeptical.

For those who say look what they did in the playoffs last year despite being banged up, consider they had the easiest opponent in the Wild Card round via a WSH team that limped into the playoffs after winning the weakest division in the NFC. They then played an AZ team, a team much like themselves built mostly on offense and a "good enough" defense. That same AZ team went to Carolina the following week and was utterly humiliated in the worst NFCCG performance since the wonderful Vikings experience in 2001.

So again I ask, why are these offensive juggernauts the favorites? Why is 2016 going to be different?

Yea, can't take that next step against elite Defenses, except for, you know, when they won the SB.

I don't think to negatively about the ARI playoff game, our D held there top ranked O quite decently and our 5th and 6th WRs were thrust into starting roles and absolutely took the Cards top ranked secondary (A D that is 'just good enough' in your words) to the woodshed.

To answer your question about the Defense, Yes that is the hope, the D was ranked higher then the Vikes D for much of last year, and only fell from top 7 to 12th after we played ARI without our top two corners. Our 'good enough' D? it was ranked slightly over a point less then the Vikes in terms of average ppg.

Our O line? Sitton was a year away from being gone anyway, our O line when healthy is was amongst the best in the league with Sitton, I doubt his absence will knock them out, besides, its not like we don't have multiple options in regards to guard, we already know Tretter can play Guard fantastically but we also were readying Lane Taylor for a starting position for some time now.

Lacy was solid even in is worst year last year, he looks and is in far better shape so a return to his rookie form would certainly be encouraging, why wouldn't it be?

McCarthy was also the playcaller in 2010, what is your point?

To pretty much sum it all up, the 2014 Packers were the best Packers team in the Rodgers era, and they would have easily cruised to a SB win had Rodgers not sustained a crippling injury he had to play through, I think this O can be easily just as good (Jordy comes back, but we also have Jared Cook now) as the 2014 teams O, but the D has the wherewithall to be way, way better then that, I think our secondary is the best, most talented in the league, and it is going to catapult the Packers D to top 5. (Where they straddled most of last year)

But most of all, we have Aaron Rodgers, and when you put Aaron Rodgers on a team with even an average D, they are going to rightfully be Division, and SB favorites.

Texas Vike wrote:
Nice post. I'm sure someone around here will have an "answer" to your questions.

I'll be the devil's advocate and try to answer a few of them.

Why should we believe that even though the past 5 Super Bowls were won by elite defensive teams that this will be the year of the offense?

The last 5 Super Bowls weren't won by teams with elite defenses. The Broncos and Seahawks defenses fit that description. The 2011 Giants defense was ranked 27th! The 2012 Ravens defense was ranked 17th. The 2014 Patriots defense was ranked 13th but 8th in ppg. I don't consider that elite but that one is debatable since they were a top 10 scoring defense (is top 10 "elite"?)

Why are these offensive juggernauts the favorites?

I'm not sure which teams are being referenced in this question so I'll assume Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

The latter is probably under consideration because they have a Super Bowl-winning QB, they were very close to reaching the Super Bowl just 2 years ago, when they lost the NFCC game to Seattle. They have a solid defense comparable to the Vikings and ranked higher than the defenses of 2 of those past 5 Super Bowl winners. they appear to be a balanced, playoff-caliber team and obviously, prognosticators love a team like that with an great QB.

The Steelers story is similar. They gave up more yards than GB last year but fewer points. They have a potent offense and a QB who has won 2 Super Bowls. They certainly look like a legitimate contender.

Neither team seems like an unreasonable pick to me.

TSonn wrote:Last night on "Inside the NFL", Brandon Marshall talked about how the Vikings are more dangerous now with Bradford than they were with Bridgewater. I tend to believe current players more than analysts/experts so that was cool to hear. I think his sentiment was that they are now in win-now mode as opposed to waiting another couple years for Teddy to become a better QB.

It makes sense. They'll have a more experienced player at the helm with Bradford so once he's up to speed (whenever that is) I'm hoping they really will be more dangerous. I'm beyond ready to see the Vikings make another serious run at the Super Bowl! I really want to see AD win one as a Viking so I hope they prove to be the best, most dangerous team in the league this season.

Once Bradford begins starting for us, can we get a Bradford/Bridgewater picture up in the banner on VMB?

It makes sense. They'll have a more experienced player at the helm with Bradford so once he's up to speed (whenever that is) I'm hoping they really will be more dangerous. I'm beyond ready to see the Vikings make another serious run at the Super Bowl! I really want to see AD win one as a Viking so I hope they prove to be the best, most dangerous team in the league this season.

I would agree from watching about a dozen Videos of him. He is very accurate and hits receivers with good timing..
The health concern was the big issue. I love Teddy and support him still but Bradford can fit a ball into a window
of inches at speed from 25 yards.. Teddy accuracy was a box of a few yards from same circumstances. Last year
Ruldolf and Wallace didn't really help Teddy much. Ruldolf dropped two easy touchdown passes and the very next play
Teddy got picked. Wallace wouldn't fight for a contested ball or dive like Diggs did a few times.

Brandon and Boomer both appear to be big believers in this season's Vikings!

I'll take it...

...wisdom

I just heard Ron Jaworski on Mike and Mike. He said based on his film study, Sam Bradford might have been the most accurate passer in the NFL last year.