Here's a trend the Vikings need to change in 2016

[Mothman]

The Zimmer Vikings record against teams that finished the season with a winning record:

0-6 in 2014 (two losses each to GB and DET plus losses to NE and BUF)

2-5 in 2015 (wins over KC and GB, losses to DEN, GB, AZ, SEA and SEA again in the postseason)

Several of those were close losses in winnable games. The wins were both by 6 point margins so they weren't dominant victories but at least they won a few of those games last season. Nevertheless, close losses are still losses and a 2-11 record is pretty definitive. For the last two seasons, the Vikings have been competitive against their better opponents but they haven't defeated them very often and 4 of those 11 losses were blowouts.

If this team is really going to become a legitimate Super Bowl contender, they obviously have to be able to beat winning teams because in the playoffs, that's all they're likely to see.

[mansquatch]

Two of those games were off performances where they did not play to their talent level, those being the GB and SEA regular season losses. The SF loss on the opener was another game where they played beneath themselves. That doesn't mean any of those games would be wins, but they were not competitive because of their execution as opposed to their talent level. A few of the tight games came down to field goals, ARZ, DEN, SEA playoff loss.

To me we need to do better at turning those games into not just wins, but convincing wins. A more positive outlook would be that we were consistently competitive with the class of the league. The reality is that if we are plaing strong and convert 2-3 of those games we are probably one of the top 3-4 teams in the NFL and a legitimate championship contender. I'd like to see us not just convert them, but have the point margin be 4 or more points.

I think they need to do two things:

1.) Eliminate the games where they play flat. I think this is a function of youth more than anything else, but also is up to the coaches to correct.

2.) Become more competitive in the tight games against strong opposition. IMO, this is more about the offense than the defense, although in the flat games it was the defense that was playing off putting the offense in a bad spot. I agree with Zimmer’s recent comment that the most important thing is getting the OL right.

[Mothman]

Two of those games were off performances where they did not play to their talent level, those being the GB and SEA regular season losses. The SF loss on the opener was another game where they played beneath themselves. That doesn't mean any of those games would be wins, but they were not competitive because of their execution as opposed to their talent level. A few of the tight games came down to field goals, ARZ, DEN, SEA playoff loss.

To me we need to do better at turning those games into not just wins, but convincing wins. A more positive outlook would be that we were consistently competitive with the class of the league. The reality is that if we are plaing strong and convert 2-3 of those games we are probably one of the top 3-4 teams in the NFL and a legitimate championship contender. I'd like to see us not just convert them, but have the point margin be 4 or more points.

I think they need to do two things:

1.) Eliminate the games where they play flat. I think this is a function of youth more than anything else, but also is up to the coaches to correct.

2.) Become more competitive in the tight games against strong opposition. IMO, this is more about the offense than the defense, although in the flat games it was the defense that was playing off putting the offense in a bad spot. I agree with Zimmer’s recent comment that the most important thing is getting the OL right.

Those flat performances definitely need to go. They've been blown out too many times.

Getting the OL right would make a difference and improving the passing game would make an even bigger difference (obviously, the OL is part of that effort).

As you pointed out, the defense had it's problems, especially in blowout losses. For example, in the 3 losses you mentioned at the beginning of your post (SF, GB and SEA) the Vikings allowed 527 yards rushing!

As we've discussed before, I think poor offense contributed as much to those flat games as the defense and consequently, I don't think building a better record against winning competition is necessarily more about the offense than the defense. I think it's a team issue that begins with coaching and includes all 3 units of the team. They influence one another and together, they need to learn how to put forth the effort it takes to win these games, not just to come close and occasionally get crushed.

[mansquatch]

I agree that a better offense might have bailed them out, especially against a lack luster team like SF. However, I think achieving that is a pipe dream. TB is not an elite passer that can carry a team on his back like a Rogers or Brady. Maybe he'll shock us this year, but his current body of work suggests otherwise. I'm not sold on needing that player to win it all though. Peyton Manning this year was not that "Type 1" guy on the field even if he has been in the past. They still won. Really all the superbowl winners since 2010 have been winning with strong defense and competent offense.

So to me it is more about playing to Zimmer's philosophy of clean, smart, physical football. The part of the "clean" is not showing up flat in a game.

We've talked about this a lot, but if they can play defense like they did 2015 and average 4 more PF while eliminating the three "flat" games they are likely going to grab a 1 or 2 seed in the playoffs. I think people forget that in most of those close games last year it literally came down to two or three plays. That to me is where the offense needs to improve. They have a lot more room to make 2-3 more plays than the defense does. If they can make that happen we should expect a rewarding season that lasts into January.

[S197]

It's always good to have goals, this one should be the next evolution. They've already significantly improved their road record and performances after bye weeks. I would also consider the GB and SEA examples as something to be positive about considering how much better the team looked playing these respective teams the second time around.

The volatility is mainly a result of this being a young team, and also, this is the NFL. Even strong teams like GB had the snot beat out of them by sub-par teams last year. Any given Sunday and all of that...

[jackal]

two of the things that drive me nuts are the pooch screw losses AKA SF, GB, and Seattle I mean a loss is one thing
but to lose three games especially two at home by twenty points .. that is just wrong...

teams scoring in the last two minutes of each half... how many games do we pitch a shut out and then give
a huge play to a team and bring them back in the game? too many...

[Mothman]

It's always good to have goals, this one should be the next evolution. They've already significantly improved their road record and performances after bye weeks. I would also consider the GB and SEA examples as something to be positive about considering how much better the team looked playing these respective teams the second time around.

That's a good point. They did fare much better the second time around and that's encouraging. It's also encouraging that they beat a few of those winning teams last year as opposed to the (goose egg in '14). Hopefully, those are indications of progress.

The volatility is mainly a result of this being a young team, and also, this is the NFL. Even strong teams like GB had the snot beat out of them by sub-par teams last year. Any given Sunday and all of that...

Sure, the "any given Sunday" rule always applies. However, I don't attribute the volatility to youth as much as I attribute it to weaknesses and limitations. There were common threads that ran through the blowout losses last season: vulnerable run defense and a passing attack that couldn't pick up the slack when the Vikes running game struggled. I think coaching played a part too but those vulnerable areas made the plan of attack against the Vikes pretty clear. Fortunately, most teams couldn't pull it off. However, if they don't improve on those weaknesses, I won't be surprised if we see a few similar games in 2016.

[fiestavike]

As teams improve in talent, skill, strength, understanding etc. they are able to compete with other good teams. When they are able to compete with those teams, they are capable of defeating those teams.

The team needs to improve and the trends will begin to favor them. All that matters is being a good team, being a better team.

[Jordysghost]

It's always good to have goals, this one should be the next evolution. They've already significantly improved their road record and performances after bye weeks. I would also consider the GB and SEA examples as something to be positive about considering how much better the team looked playing these respective teams the second time around.

The volatility is mainly a result of this being a young team, and also, this is the NFL. Even strong teams like GB had the snot beat out of them by sub-par teams last year. Any given Sunday and all of that...

I dont know about "Snot beaten out of them" (They were by Denver and AZ, both pretty alright teams) but they definitely did lose to a couple sub par teams last year with the Bears and Lions both knocking them off in Lambeau.