Rand: Are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago?

[Mothman]

This is a good (and pretty short) read and food for thought:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 76291.html

It has been interesting to listen to the narrative of the Vikings this season, hearing fans talk of improvement despite a losing record and national outlets praise the job first-year coach Mike Zimmer has done in the face of adversity.

We’re not here to disagree with either of those things, but now that the final ledger is set, it is worthwhile to ask a fundamental question: Are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago, or are they simply the beneficiaries of a shift in expectations?

For those who don't read the full column, here's the conclusion:

Our take is that because of the strides made by Bridgewater and the defense, the Vikings’ two most glaring problems — and two of the hardest problems to fix in the NFL — are on the way to becoming pluses instead of minuses. And because of that, the Vikings now are better off than they were a year ago.

But Zimmer and Co. also benefited this year from just how bad last year’s team was by comparison. The Vikings will get no such free pass in 2015, particularly if the “team on the rise” narrative continues.

I think he makes an excellent point about the narrative and the degree to which this year's team has benefitted from comparisons to certain aspects of last year's team. I wish I could decide how I feel about the question I indicated in bold above because right now, I'm on the fence. I think they're better off in the sense that they appear to have made genuine progress in their search for a solution at QB and they should have stability at head coach for at least a couple more seasons, hopefully longer. Beyond that, I'm just not sure. Their offense left a lot to be desired and although they missed Peterson, for all we know they might be missing him again next year since his future with the team is depressingly uncertain. Their pass defense is much better but their run defense was a serious achilles heel and they need to get that fixed. Ditto for the o-line. Those are two areas where weakness all-but-prevents sustainable success.

I'm not sure if the arrow is pointing up just yet.

[IrishViking]

I have been surprised about how rarely it has been mentioned the difficulty that teams playing in temporary homes have faced too. I thought that would have been a major talking point. IMO just looking big picture; better record, better QB play, better defense, gives you everything you need to decide the trajectory of the team

[Boon]

Regardless of what zim says in pressers, TCF does not have a home feel to it. You can't spin that any way and make it out to be true. It feels bland and not scaring anyone, regardless if they sell out or not. Metrodome always had that noise factor. As bad as that stadium was it actually felt like a home field, not a souped up high school venue.

[Mothman]

I have been surprised about how rarely it has been mentioned the difficulty that teams playing in temporary homes have faced too. I thought that would have been a major talking point. IMO just looking big picture; better record, better QB play, better defense, gives you everything you need to decide the trajectory of the team

That's one way to look at it it but better defense was contrasted by a less effective offense, better QB play didn't translate into a more productive passing game (although hopefully it will) and they won 1.5 games more than last year while going 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record.

I'd feel a heck of a lot better about them if they'd finished the season stronger but they lost 2 of their last 3 and yesterday, they barely slipped past a self-destructive Bears team that's in disarray. If the Bears had won that game, the two teams would have ended up with the same record. That's how close they were and yet here in Chicago, Bears ownership took out a full-page ad saying they wouldn't make excuses and thanking fans for their support. They practically apologized for their season and it was difficult for me to keep that out of my mind as I watched the supposedly improving Vikes struggle to put them away and avoid ending up with the same record. Thankfully, the Vikings prevailed and finished two games up on Chicago instead of tied but when reading Rand's comments about the narrative of this team, it was hard not to contrast that with the narrative of a Bears team that, in the end, wasn't much worse.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think it depends on how you look at it.

If you're looking for signs of distinct improvement, they are present. Conversely, if you're looking to show they didn't improve, those signs are there, too.

My attitude has been obvious all year, and it hasn't changed. I think the team is better off, and it's not close for me. Here's my glass-half-full view.

- The team had a winning record at home, even though they played in a temporary venue.
- They had two road wins after no road wins in 2013 and only three in the playoff season of 2012.
- They lost key players on offense for significant portions of the season -- Peterson, Cassel, Rudolph, Fusco, and Loadholt -- but still managed to win seven games.
- Cordarrelle Patterson wasn't injured enough to miss games, but the impact of his poor play had the same effect.
- The Vikings had no dynamic playmakers on offense, yet Bridgewater averaged more than 8 YPA over his last four games.
- The defense allowed nearly 9 ppg less than 2013. That's huge.
- At times, the defense dictated the game. We haven't seen that in years.
- The defense made great strides against division quarterbacks Rodgers, Stafford, and Cutler, who have tormented the Vikings in recent years.
- Special teams had an excellent season. Walsh did slump a bit with field goals, but coverage was excellent all year, thanks in part to Walsh's booming kickoffs, and Jeff Locke quietly had a solid year.
- We survived the growing pains of a rookie quarterback, who improved markedly over the season and won six games.

There's more, but I'll stop there.

Now, I realize fully that those who wish to look at the air in the glass can post a list of negatives just as long. But the question to me is, could we have honestly posted a list of positives like this last year? I don't think so. Could be wrong, I guess, but to my mind, we have made enough strides to be ready to challenge for a playoff spot next year.

[John_Viveiros]

Answering the question that was asked:
Yes. Absolutely. The Vikings are better off than they were a year ago. At the most important position on the team, they are clearly better, even if this is Teddy's ceiling. The defense is at least average now. We could not have said that last year. We have money to spend in free agency, if we choose.

Are the Vikings a better team in the last game of 2015 than they were in the last game of 2014? That one, I don't know. With the injuries, their offensive line was abysmal this year.

[Mothman]

Answering the question that was asked:
Yes. Absolutely. The Vikings are better off than they were a year ago. At the most important position on the team, they are clearly better, even if this is Teddy's ceiling. The defense is at least average now. We could not have said that last year. We have money to spend in free agency, if we choose.

Are the Vikings a better team in the last game of 2015 than they were in the last game of 2014? That one, I don't know. With the injuries, their offensive line was abysmal this year.

Well said. I think that's a sensible way to look at it, John. After giving it some more thought, I'm inclined to agree that they're better off, if for no other reason than a better QB situation.

I preach patience all the time and I'm trying to be patient but the losing seasons keep piling up and it's discouraging.

[cstelter]

That's one way to look at it it but better defense was contrasted by a less effective offense, better QB play didn't translate into a more productive passing game (although hopefully it will) and they won 1.5 games more than last year while going 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record.

I have a problem with the 'never beat a team with a winning record' stat. Fact is we only played 4 teams with a winning record (6 games). One of them has home field advantage in the AFC. Had we beaten Buffalo, they would have wound up 8-8 and we *still* wouldn't have beaten a team with a winning record. Similarly we *did* beat a playoff team in Carolina and had we *not* beaten them, they would have been yet another winning team that we did not beat-- but since we beat them they were not a winning team so we lose on the stat either way if we beat them or if we don't.

The other 2 teams we played with winning records are also 4 games we played in our own division against GB and Det. So really, you are piling on with the '1-5 in the division' and 'never beat a team with a winning record' as those 4 losses are 4/6 of the reason we never beat a team with a winning record and those 4 games are 4/5 of the reason we had 5 losses in the division.

My point is that 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record is absolutely true. But at the end of the day we lost to GB by 3 and to Det by 2 in weeks 12 and 15. Had we turned those two around we could have been 3-3 in the division and we would have ended the season 9-7 and we would have beaten 2 teams with a winning record. It seems a lot of weight to place on only 2 games as a metric for a season.

As another perspective, let's apply your assessment of the Vikings to New Orleans: Their QB play translated into the 3rd highest yds/game and 9th highest pts/game. They beat PIT and GB so they beat 2 teams with winning records. They were 3-3 in their division. Yet they had the same lousy 7-9 record that we had and also missed the playoffs. So I guess I would argue that while your stats are true, they are really nothing more than a 'glass half empty' way of looking at the numbers and really do not tell much of a story other than to be pessimistic.

Why not call it what it was and not color it with stats that are not really telling?

[mansquatch]

I think it depends on how you look at it.

If you're looking for signs of distinct improvement, they are present. Conversely, if you're looking to show they didn't improve, those signs are there, too.

My attitude has been obvious all year, and it hasn't changed. I think the team is better off, and it's not close for me. Here's my glass-half-full view.

- The team had a winning record at home, even though they played in a temporary venue.
- They had two road wins after no road wins in 2013 and only three in the playoff season of 2012.
- They lost key players on offense for significant portions of the season -- Peterson, Cassel, Rudolph, Fusco, and Loadholt -- but still managed to win seven games.
- Cordarrelle Patterson wasn't injured enough to miss games, but the impact of his poor play had the same effect.
- The Vikings had no dynamic playmakers on offense, yet Bridgewater averaged more than 8 YPA over his last four games.
- The defense allowed nearly 9 ppg less than 2013. That's huge.
- At times, the defense dictated the game. We haven't seen that in years.
- The defense made great strides against division quarterbacks Rodgers, Stafford, and Cutler, who have tormented the Vikings in recent years.
- Special teams had an excellent season. Walsh did slump a bit with field goals, but coverage was excellent all year, thanks in part to Walsh's booming kickoffs, and Jeff Locke quietly had a solid year.
- We survived the growing pains of a rookie quarterback, who improved markedly over the season and won six games.

There's more, but I'll stop there.

Now, I realize fully that those who wish to look at the air in the glass can post a list of negatives just as long. But the question to me is, could we have honestly posted a list of positives like this last year? I don't think so. Could be wrong, I guess, but to my mind, we have made enough strides to be ready to challenge for a playoff spot next year.

This is where I'm at. This team went 7-9 without it's best player for 15 of 16 games. I think the comparison to last season might seem similar on the surface, but consider that last year's club won one less game while having a full season of Peterson. That is a huge difference IMO.

[HardcoreVikesFan]

The question the author in and off itself is rhetorical: the Vikings are better off than last year because they won more games. However, answering the question, "are the Vikings better off than they were a year ago" is highly subjective.

In my opinion, this team is ready for playoff contention. Why shouldn't they be? Next year's schedule looks like a death sentence on paper, but we have seen that narrative before. Peterson could return. Loadholt and Fusco will return. Anthony Barr will return. Teddy will be entrenched as the starter and have all offseason. The players will get to continue to work in the same system for another year.

Barring anything unforeseen, one cannot sit here and argue this team is going to regress in the offseason. This offseason will be key as far as addition of new players is concerned. Zimmer and Spielman made a concise plan and will get to execute year two of their plan. It looks like there will be upgrades at SS, LG, CB, WR, and LB.

[Mothman]

I have a problem with the 'never beat a team with a winning record' stat. Fact is we only played 4 teams with a winning record (6 games). One of them has home field advantage in the AFC. Had we beaten Buffalo, they would have wound up 8-8 and we *still* wouldn't have beaten a team with a winning record. Similarly we *did* beat a playoff team in Carolina and had we *not* beaten them, they would have been yet another winning team that we did not beat-- but since we beat them they were not a winning team so we lose on the stat either way if we beat them or if we don't.

The other 2 teams we played with winning records are also 4 games we played in our own division against GB and Det. So really, you are piling on with the '1-5 in the division' and 'never beat a team with a winning record' as those 4 losses are 4/6 of the reason we never beat a team with a winning record and those 4 games are 4/5 of the reason we had 5 losses in the division.

My point is that 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record is absolutely true. But at the end of the day we lost to GB by 3 and to Det by 2 in weeks 12 and 15. Had we turned those two around we could have been 3-3 in the division and we would have ended the season 9-7 and we would have beaten 2 teams with a winning record. It seems a lot of weight to place on only 2 games as a metric for a season.

As another perspective, let's apply your assessment of the Vikings to New Orleans: Their QB play translated into the 3rd highest yds/game and 9th highest pts/game. They beat PIT and GB so they beat 2 teams with winning records. They were 3-3 in their division. Yet they had the same lousy 7-9 record that we had and also missed the playoffs. So I guess I would argue that while your stats are true, they are really nothing more than a 'glass half empty' way of looking at the numbers and really do not tell much of a story other than to be pessimistic.

Why not call it what it was and not color it with stats that are not really telling?

Fair enough: it was another losing season, the 4th in 5 years.

I think the W/L record, and the nature of the teams the Vikes lost to and defeated, tells us something about the Vikings themselves, about where they are as a team. I see it as more than just a "glass half empty" way of viewing things. A 1-5 record in the division is bad. Those 3 teams are the Vikings primary competition. How they perform against them is significant.

I know I sound cynical today but I'm finding it difficult to be optimistic about a team that never beat a quality opponent this season.

Edit: I DO see some of the reasons for optimism that have been expressed. I'm encouraged by the progress Bridgewater showed over the course of the season and by the significant improvements in pass defense. My Vikings glass might be half empty but it not empty.

[Purple Reign]

I have a problem with the 'never beat a team with a winning record' stat. Fact is we only played 4 teams with a winning record (6 games). One of them has home field advantage in the AFC. Had we beaten Buffalo, they would have wound up 8-8 and we *still* wouldn't have beaten a team with a winning record. Similarly we *did* beat a playoff team in Carolina and had we *not* beaten them, they would have been yet another winning team that we did not beat-- but since we beat them they were not a winning team so we lose on the stat either way if we beat them or if we don't.

The other 2 teams we played with winning records are also 4 games we played in our own division against GB and Det. So really, you are piling on with the '1-5 in the division' and 'never beat a team with a winning record' as those 4 losses are 4/6 of the reason we never beat a team with a winning record and those 4 games are 4/5 of the reason we had 5 losses in the division.

My point is that 1-5 in the division and never beat a team with a winning record is absolutely true. But at the end of the day we lost to GB by 3 and to Det by 2 in weeks 12 and 15. Had we turned those two around we could have been 3-3 in the division and we would have ended the season 9-7 and we would have beaten 2 teams with a winning record. It seems a lot of weight to place on only 2 games as a metric for a season.

As another perspective, let's apply your assessment of the Vikings to New Orleans: Their QB play translated into the 3rd highest yds/game and 9th highest pts/game. They beat PIT and GB so they beat 2 teams with winning records. They were 3-3 in their division. Yet they had the same lousy 7-9 record that we had and also missed the playoffs. So I guess I would argue that while your stats are true, they are really nothing more than a 'glass half empty' way of looking at the numbers and really do not tell much of a story other than to be pessimistic.

Why not call it what it was and not color it with stats that are not really telling?

Saying we only went 1-5 in the division and didn't beat a team with a winning record IS calling it what it was - how can you argue with the facts? You appear to be the one coloring it with 'what if' stats that don't matter.

[PurpleMustReign]

To me, the question is silly (no offense Jim). I haven't felt this good about the direction of the team since Denny Green was the coach. I think the autjor of the articlle wanted some attention so he wrote something stupid.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[PurpleMustReign]

Fair enough: it was another losing season, the 4th in 5 years.

I think the W/L record, and the nature of the teams the Vikes lost to and defeated, tells us something about the Vikings themselves, about where they are as a team. I see it as more than just a a "glass half empty" way of viewing things. A 1-5 record in the division is bad. Those 3 teams are the Vikings primary competition. How they perform against them is significant.

I know I sound cynical today but I'm finding it difficult to be optimistic about a team that never beat a quality opponent this season.

Edit: I DO see some of the reasons for optimism that have been expressed. I'm encouraged by the progress Bridgewater showed over the course of the season and by the significant improvements in pass defense. My Vikings glass might be half empty but it not empty.

Jim, they destroyed a Rams defense that later shut out two teams in a row, they handily beat the NFC South winner, and had the best points given up difference from last year of any nfl team. Hardly not beating any good competition. They had some duds, but I am finally excited about progress for the Vikings rather than regression.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[losperros]

Fair enough: it was another losing season, the 4th in 5 years.

I think the W/L record, and the nature of the teams the Vikes lost to and defeated, tells us something about the Vikings themselves, about where they are as a team. I see it as more than just a a "glass half empty" way of viewing things. A 1-5 record in the division is bad. Those 3 teams are the Vikings primary competition. How they perform against them is significant.

I know I sound cynical today but I'm finding it difficult to be optimistic about a team that never beat a quality opponent this season.

Edit: I DO see some of the reasons for optimism that have been expressed. I'm encouraged by the progress Bridgewater showed over the course of the season and by the significant improvements in pass defense. My Vikings glass might be half empty but it not empty.

I think the team has improved in some important areas (as if any area isn't important) and I'm ready to praise Zimmer for most of it. I'm excited about the off-season progress some of the young guys are bound to make, and I'm really looking forward to next year's draft and FA market for the Vikings.

After listening to the inside information gathered from Access Vikings regarding Cordarrelle Patterson, I now know what his problem is. I hope he can make a turn around. It seems as if it might be possible, especially since attitude does not play into it. So I'm hopeful.

That said, I agree with all you wrote above, Jim.

I'm sorry, folks, but the W/L record tells it all, which is why it's the determining factor in the standings, and we've seen too many losing and/or mediocre years from the Vikings lately.

I don't buy into the Vikings "would have" had more wins "if" they won a close game. Yeah, right. "If" the Queen had balls, she'd be King. But she doesn't and that's that. Good teams find ways to win. Bad teams lose. I don't think this year's Vikings was horrible but they weren't winners in the long run. For example, the 1-5 division record will never cut it, regardless what year we're talking about.

Are the Vikings better off than last year? Well, yes, I think they're closer to becoming a good team than last year's version. I guess I don't think they're good yet, though. They need to dominate their division and win at home all the time to be part of the big boys in the league. And I'm really hoping that will happen within the next couple years.