Vikings Message Board.Com

I dug this writeup. I think it paints a fine picture of what Frazier/Spielman are each trying to accomplish and the buy-in from players.

http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Peli ... cies081512

He has preached endlessly about being a tough, smart team -- which has been the opposite of their identity since the NFC championship game loss in January 2010.

Bad teams find ways to lose games, as the Vikings did nine times last season by seven points or less.

I guess I hadn't cared to think about this particular stat but that's...remarkable (for lack of a better word). If things have improved (which, there are signs the offensive line and secondary have done that, but to what degree?), it's not completely misguided to think this team can win more than 5 or 6 games.

I completely forgot about this but do remember reading it.

SD- Lost by 7 (Up by 3 going into the 4th)
TB- Lost by 4 (Up by 7 going into the 4th)
DET- Lost by 3 (Up by 10 going into the 4th)
KS- Lost by 5 ( Down by 5 going into the 4th)
GB- Lost by 6 ( Down by 16 going into the 4th)
OAK- Lost by 6 (Down by 20 going into the 4th)
DEN- Lost by 3 (Up by 1 going into the 4th)
DET- Lost by 6 (Down by 10 going into the 4th)
CHI- Lost by 4 ( Tied going into the 4th)

4 Divisional games lost by 6 points or less.

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. There are 31 other teams in the NFL right now who are thinking that they too have worked pretty damned hard through the offseason and training camp.

Press conferences and quotes from GMs and head coaches haven't won too many games in the history of the NFL. I don't expect that to change soon. Just play some football already and see how you stack up against those other 31.

Bad teams find ways to lose games, as the Vikings did nine times last season by seven points or less.

No, wait. I thought the optimistic fan says that the Vikings were actually a good team that just barely lost those nine games through bad luck and poor officiating.

Eli wrote:Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. There are 31 other teams in the NFL right now who are thinking that they too have worked pretty damned hard through the offseason and training camp.

Press conferences and quotes from GMs and head coaches haven't won too many games in the history of the NFL. I don't expect that to change soon. Just play some football already and see how you stack up against those other 31.
No, wait. I thought the optimistic fan says that the Vikings were actually a good team that just barely lost those nine games through bad luck and poor officiating.

How about: teams with bad quarterback play find ways to lose games. Or bad coaching. I'm one of those guys who think this team could win ten games with Brady at qb and Belichek as coach.

John, a great QB and coach obviously make a big difference for any team. I don't know if they'd make a 7 win difference on their own but they'd make a difference.

Dead_poet, thanks for the link. It's an encouraging article. Hopefully, the Vikes really will be able to surprise us with a much better season than expected.

Bad teams definitely find ways to lose games, but as the thread just showed 9 games by a touchdown or less, it's not unthinkable good (not great) QB play could have won a few of those games and that's under the stipulation that the good QB play ONLY comes in the last 10 minutes of the game. In what I would "guess" as close to half of those games we were actually driving the field for the go ahead touchdown when bad QB play usually turned the ball over ending the game.

That's not to say I'm defending the coaches / quote, everyone tries to get better, however it's harder to do for some teams. The Vikings can only really go up from here, where some of the mediocre or slightly above average teams could actually go backwards.

I do believe the Vikings had a lot of talent in some key areas while absolutely none, with hardly any depth in others. Allen lead the league in sacks, Harvin was way up there for receptions, the d-line's still above average and there is a guy named Adrian Peterson (plz be healthy!) You look at the secondary and O-line though and they're pushing on worst in the league. Point is, there is talent here, and a guy like Kalil should solidify one of our biggest weaknesses while harrison smith and a healthy winfield / cook hopefully make the secondary at least serviceable. Second year guys like Ponder and Rudolph will be coming into their own as well. (again hopefully!)

I don't expect them to be great, but 6-8 wins would be a massive improvement over the 3 win disaster last year and I don't see why 6 wins, especially wouldn't be obtainable, looking at the schedule.

80 PurplePride 84 wrote: I think they could win 12 with Bill Walsh and Joe Montana.

Is Montana looking to make a comeback? Have we at least offered him $20 million yet?

Eli wrote:No, wait. I thought the optimistic fan says that the Vikings were actually a good team that just barely lost those nine games through bad luck and poor officiating.

I don't know. Does anyone, regardless how optimistic, really believe the Vikings were a good team the last two seasons? Their W/L record during that time speaks for itself.

lost nine games by 7 or less, thats pretty impressive for a team who had an abysmal secondary, shaky o-line, poor wrs, and different qbs.

if we can shape up in a few of these areas, we could surprise some people this year.

smoothoperator wrote:lost nine games by 7 or less, thats pretty impressive for a team who had an abysmal secondary, shaky o-line, poor wrs, and different qbs.

if we can shape up in a few of these areas, we could surprise some people this year.

Maybe. I hope so. But I don't think 9 losses is impressive for any reason, regardless how close the scores were in the games.

i feel ya. but you gotta see the silver lining, because it could always be worse

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking

It's becoming more and more clear that's all they have over there.

Other players don't try as hard? Other coaches don't coach as hard? yeah, they do, they also have more actual ability. So good luck trying to outwork anyone.

mondry wrote:Bad teams definitely find ways to lose games, but as the thread just showed 9 games by a touchdown or less, it's not unthinkable good (not great) QB play could have won a few of those games and that's under the stipulation that the good QB play ONLY comes in the last 10 minutes of the game. In what I would "guess" as close to half of those games we were actually driving the field for the go ahead touchdown when bad QB play usually turned the ball over ending the game.

That's not to say I'm defending the coaches / quote, everyone tries to get better, however it's harder to do for some teams. The Vikings can only really go up from here, where some of the mediocre or slightly above average teams could actually go backwards.

I do believe the Vikings had a lot of talent in some key areas while absolutely none, with hardly any depth in others. Allen lead the league in sacks, Harvin was way up there for receptions, the d-line's still above average and there is a guy named Adrian Peterson (plz be healthy!) You look at the secondary and O-line though and they're pushing on worst in the league. Point is, there is talent here, and a guy like Kalil should solidify one of our biggest weaknesses while harrison smith and a healthy winfield / cook hopefully make the secondary at least serviceable. Second year guys like Ponder and Rudolph will be coming into their own as well. (again hopefully!)

I don't expect them to be great, but 6-8 wins would be a massive improvement over the 3 win disaster last year and I don't see why 6 wins, especially wouldn't be obtainable, looking at the schedule.

I agree. IMO the most important thing for them in terms of winning more games will be Ponder limiting his turnovers. If he can significantly cut this one stat, then I think they will be much more competitive, even if he doens't light up the passing stats like his divisional counterparts.