Mothman wrote:
It's an interesting comparison but the comparisons between the two QBs start to break down when you look a little more closely. .
It breaks down because their supporting casts aren't even close and 1995 was Aikman's 7th NFL season, well into his prime.
Even though the extra TD's and points are a big deal, I find it encouraging that our team is even remotely close in comparison. Let's not forget we were 3-13 not that long ago and before the season started a win/loss prediction of 10-6 or 11-5 was "going out on a limb". This isn't Teddy's 7th season either, it's his 2nd, and now 10-6 is pessimistic!
I'm just enjoying it, sure Carolina's D line should just destroy us but you never know, maybe Rudolph hangs on to that wide open TD pass in the endzone next time and the scoring isn't as much of a negative They just have to get HOT at the right time and a run is possible. The Wild card Giants or the Wild card Packers had plenty of flaws and sure as heck weren't perfect but we all know how that ended.
Mothman wrote:
Start carving his bust in Canton...
It's an interesting comparison but the comparisons between the two QBs and teams start to break down when you look a little more closely. Assuming the projections hold up for Bridgewater, that 4.5 TD difference doesn't look like much but it amounts to 31.5 points (assuming 7 per TD) which could easily be the difference between winning or losing several games.
Aikman was sacked 14 times in1995. Bridgewater's already been sacked 30 times this season.
The Cowboys offense was far more productive when it came to scoring. Aikman threw for 16 TDs that year and as a team, they had 18 TD passes (throw in another 14 points) but they also scored 29 rushing TDs. The Vikes are on pace for 17 (now add another 84 points).
Put simply, the 1995 Cowboys were 3rd in the league in scoring, averaging 27.2 points per game and their defense was also 3rd in scoring, allowing an average of 18.2 points per game.
In contrast, the 2015 Vikings are 23rd in the league in scoring, averaging 21 points per game in an era with more scoring. They have the edge in defensive points allowed though, giving up an average of 17.6 per game.
It's a nice thought and I'd love it if this season ended with a Super Bowl championship for the Vikings. If it did, the stats wouldn't matter at all. I don't think the Vikes are the 2015 equivalent of the '95 Cowboys though.
Just thought I'd post it to get back to the OP's discussion.
One stat that blew my mind, Emmitt Smith had 25 rushing TD's that year. Twenty Five!!!
808vikingsfan wrote:
Just thought I'd post it to get back to the OP's discussion.
One stat that blew my mind, Emmitt Smith had 25 rushing TD's that year. Twenty Five!!!
I think Terry Allen might have had 21 one year under Norv too.
I think the stat breaks down because the game isn't the same anymore, and because one only needs to watch to see that this offense has not reached that level of proficiency.
After his hall of fame offense gave him a name, he became the head coach of the redskins for 7 seasons. He amassed a whopping 49 and 59 record and only made the playoffs once. (1999) He then went on to coach Oakland, 9-23 record before he got fired. Few uneventful stints as OC in SD, SF and Miami peppered in there. Coached 6 years in san diego with a 56-40 record frontloaded by 2 seasons with high wins. Rest was uneventful.
Then Cleveland and Minnesota as OC. In the 21 seasons since he left dallas his offenses have cracked the top 10, 5 times. They call him a guru, I don't think 5 top 10 offenses in 21 years as a head coach and OC qualifies him as a guru. Going down the line I see quite a few 20's. Including 31st his last year in san diego, where he was calling the plays IIRC, and 27th last year, almost last this year.
I wonder how long Zimmer will let this go on. Some said Norv will be the death of him, but I wouldn't put is past Mike to tell Norv to shape up or ship out. The offense now is worse than it ever was with Bevell or Musgrave, and that is saying something. I cannot imagine someone like Zimmer being ok with that.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
PurpleMustReign wrote:I wonder how long Zimmer will let this go on. Some said Norv will be the death of him, but I wouldn't put is past Mike to tell Norv to shape up or ship out. The offense now is worse than it ever was with Bevell or Musgrave, and that is saying something. I cannot imagine someone like Zimmer being ok with that.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
End of the season we will know. I vote walking papers handed out but Zim may have other ideas.
“We’re a run-first team, we have (Peterson) in the backfield, the best player in the NFL, and it’s hard, (when) you’re down so much (to) just pound the rock and do what we do best,” left guard Brandon Fusco said. “We’re one-dimensional like that. It’s tough for the coordinator to make us go as an offense.”
The Vikings, in many ways, are a better version of what they were in 2012: They are in their comfort zone when they build an early lead, can base their offense on Peterson and allow their defense to shut opponents down. But much like that team, the Vikings don't seem to be built to come from behind. What's more, they seem to be having an identity crisis about what they should do in those situations.
Should they continue to give Peterson the ball, knowing their best big-play threat requires a time-consuming investment that allows him to wear defenses down? Or should they turn to Teddy Bridgewater, asking him to ignite the offense while defenses are going to come after him?
Pass protection has been a problem all season and even the answer there remains elusive. The Vikings have toyed with more max-protection sets, they've dialed up some quick-hitting passes for Bridgewater and they've asked him at times to get the ball out sooner, all with fluctuating results. They haven't come up with a way to capitalize on teams selling out to stop Peterson, who saw eight or more defenders in the box on six of his eight carries against the Seahawks, according to ESPN Stats & Information data. As a result, the balanced and potent offense they hoped for hasn't materialized.
Not to dismiss the offensive woes, but when your defense is missing half of it's starters and gives up 21 points before half time against an offense that was essentially toothless coming into the game, then the end result we saw is not a surprise. To be honest I'm more worried about this than I am the offense. If they cannot stop a Seattle team with a terrible OL, no Lynch, and no Jimmy Graham then how do we expect to beat any of our next four opponents?
The stat Poet put with regards to 7 step drops and QB pressure is very troubling to me. Given the state of our OL running 7 step drop backs seems criminal.
As much as I've dogged the guy, I'm really wondering why our offense isn't built more around CP84 and Rudolph in the short to intermediate game while Diggs and Wallace can run crosses and stuff to the outside? If teams are so focused on AP, then it shouldn't be hard to create match up issues with those two guys.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
mansquatch wrote:To be honest I'm more worried about this than I am the offense.
Really? Defense was bad, but the offense scored 0 points. I'll say that again, ZERO POINTS. I don't care what your defense is doing, you aren't winning games if you can't even get a frickin field goal. We couldn't even manage to get in field goal range except the one time we did, we ran a stupid play and ended up punting. There is excuses with the injuries for the bad defensive performance, but they still stopped the Seahawks occasionally. The offense didn't contribute towards at all in that game.
Our Defense gave up 21 points by half time against an offense that was basically Russel Wilson, an undrafted college RB, an OL that is worse than ours, and a bunch of No Name WR. It WILL NOT MATTER if TB becomes the second coming Tom Brady in 3 days if our defense plays the way it did on Sunday the rest of the season. We will lose every single game.
So yes, I'm more worried about that than the offense.
That is not the same as my saying our offense isn't a problem, it is a problem. But just about every offense in the league is going to lay a giant egg against the Seahawks when they start the 2nd half down 21 points. The same way they'd lay an egg against us if we were up 21 at half time.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
mansquatch wrote: But just about every offense in the league is going to lay a giant egg against the Seahawks when they start the 2nd half down 21 points. The same way they'd lay an egg against us if we were up 21 at half time.
You can have the best defense in the league and it won't matter if your offense can't even kick a field goal. We were down by 21 points because we hadn't had a single decent offensive possession. I don't care if we're down by 10 or by 50, you need to not get shut out. Points happen in the NFL, very quickly sometimes. Our 3 best defenders were out and could all be back or at least 2 of them very soon. What's the offense going to do? Still suck? I have hope for the defense, I have almost no hope outside Peterson for the offense and even that is shaky as teams can scheme him to force us to beat them throwing(LOL).
They just have to get HOT at the right time and a run is possible. The Wild card Giants or the Wild card Packers had plenty of flaws and sure as heck weren't perfect but we all know how that ended.
