Five-Thirty-Eight: The Vikings Are In For A Rude Awakening

[germannorseman]

I too have some concerns over our offense. But it seems like our running game picked up a,little last game and it was only Bradfords 2nd game so I'm not panicking yet. We've done well but can't put touchdowns on the board. Hopefully that will,change.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[IrishViking]

I too have some concerns over our offense. But it seems like our running game picked up a,little last game and it was only Bradfords 2nd game so I'm not panicking yet. We've done well but can't put touchdowns on the board. Hopefully that will,change.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I feel like the Giants weaker defense is our best chance to see what the offense can do. If they cant produce 3 TDs in total, I'll be a little concerned.

[TSonn]

I do think this could become concerning but it's not right now. We've played 2 road games and 1 home game. We've played 1 game with a journeyman QB and 2 games with a QB who hasn't been on the team as long as a gallon of milk has been in my fridge.

I also tend to think the Vikings would be scoring more TDs and gaining more yards if the game needed for it. They aren't taking any unnecessary risks on offense at the moment in order to win the field position and turnover differential games and it is working. An example of this is the 3rd and goal during our last redzone possession against CAR where Bradford threw the ball away instead of throwing a dangerous pass across his body to a wide open Thielen. Sure, the TD would have been great there, but 3 points and no TO was more important. If we're losing that game by more than 3, Bradford probably attempts that pass for the win.

The offense was asked to score against GB and they were able to put up 2 TDs in Bradford's first game as a Viking.

[FirstAndTen]

I guess one way to look at it is "keeping this up" might mean 16-0 and regressing might mean 12-4.

I'm ok with that.

[808vikingsfan]

ESPN not agreeing with FiveThirtyEight

Which 3-0 team -- the Broncos, Eagles, Patriots, Ravens or Vikings -- is most likely to miss the playoffs?

[RFIP]

Well we've played 2 of 3 on the road to start with, and have had major personal losses in the last month so it's going to take time.

Add to that Carolina's D is one of the best in football.

I'd rather worry about making excuses for being 3-o than say "look at my great offense (New Orleans) ooops! We are 0-3!!"

[Texas Vike]

I do think this could become concerning but it's not right now. We've played 2 road games and 1 home game. We've played 1 game with a journeyman QB and 2 games with a QB who hasn't been on the team as long as a gallon of milk has been in my fridge.

I also tend to think the Vikings would be scoring more TDs and gaining more yards if the game needed for it. They aren't taking any unnecessary risks on offense at the moment in order to win the field position and turnover differential games and it is working. An example of this is the 3rd and goal during our last redzone possession against CAR where Bradford threw the ball away instead of throwing a dangerous pass across his body to a wide open Thielen. Sure, the TD would have been great there, but 3 points and no TO was more important. If we're losing that game by more than 3, Bradford probably attempts that pass for the win.

The offense was asked to score against GB and they were able to put up 2 TDs in Bradford's first game as a Viking.

Dude, drink that milk already!

[petev_sj]

There is no question that Norv Turner needs to step up. Look at what Zimm has done with the defensive talent he has. It's time the offensive genius/ multiple time NFL Head Coach Norv Turner, mode the offensive unit. If Zimm can put his signature on the defense, so can Turner on the offense. No more excuses.

[kurtkeoki]

I have a lot of respect for 538, and I think they do a great job with both sports and politics. That being said, there are two sides to the Vikings coin. Sure, we won't get 1 D/ST TD every game, but on the other hand, I expect our offense to improve a lot, to make up for the 'regression to the mean' when it comes to our D causing turnovers. OL is a unit that often takes a lot of time to gel. They should be playing better by week 7 or 8. Bradford is only going to get better as he gets more time in the offense. Our running game is going to improve, as their won't be 8 in the box if Bradford keeps teams honest. As long as our D keeps playing close to their current level, and the offense can just improve a bit, I think we can keep winning.

Basically, 538 is right that the big, game winning plays on D/ST are not going to happen every week, but they overlooked the fact that it could be somewhat balanced out by the expected improvement of our offense. Another thing is, we now have two of our toughest games behind us, so we won't have to be at our best every week.

[J. Kapp 11]

The rest of the story on our offense....9 days before the season we lost our starting QB. Enter Shuan Hill, he done enough to get us the win. Then bring in a replacement QB who has a whole system to learn.
Not to mention our running back and left tackle sustained season ending injuries.
I'm hoping we will get better as the season goes on.

And that is one of the reasons our output has been so low in my opinion.

These are good points.

To extend that thought, given all the injury turmoil, it seems likely the offense will improve. The article assumes it will stay the same. As we saw in 2014, there were times when the offense played very well, such as when they hung 41 on Atlanta.

Of course, even if we assume improvement by the offense, the question remains how much.

[J. Kapp 11]

ESPN not agreeing with FiveThirtyEight

Which 3-0 team -- the Broncos, Eagles, Patriots, Ravens or Vikings -- is most likely to miss the playoffs?

Wow. 92%. That's stout.

[chicagopurple]

The stats are just supporting the obvious reality of this team.....we have a good Defensive line....we have NO Offensive line.
In the end, our RBs will not be able to produce and our QB will end up injured because, in the NFL, you cannot win without an OL. Even everyone's favorite example of success with a great Defense and little if any offense, Baltimore with Flacco, still had an adequate OL to protect their mediocre QB.

[IrishViking]

The stats are just supporting the obvious reality of this team.....we have a good Defensive line....we have NO Offensive line.
In the end, our RBs will not be able to produce and our QB will end up injured because, in the NFL, you cannot win without an OL. Even everyone's favorite example of success with a great Defense and little if any offense, Baltimore with Flacco, still had an adequate OL to protect their mediocre QB.

Averaging 2 sacks a game and yards per carry up .5 yards last game. Not amazing but they are not doing quite as poor as some are making it out to be. We are basically 1 more yard per carry and a couple less hurries away from having a decentish line

[Nunin]

My thought is that if they keep Bradford clean til the bye that things will really start to flow on offense. Comparitively speaking...I don't see them setting the league on fire.

[Mothman]

Averaging 2 sacks a game and yards per carry up .5 yards last game. Not amazing but they are not doing quite as poor as some are making it out to be.

Averaging 2.1 yards per carry on the ground after 3 games is truly awful and it's not due to a lack of talent in the backfield.

Averaging 2 sacks per game isn't bad but they're still allowing too much pressure and if not for Hill getting the ball out of his hands very quickly (and moving quite deftly in the pocket) in week 1, I suspect the sack total would be worse.

We are basically 1 more yard per carry and a couple less hurries away from having a decentish line

3.1 yards per carry would still be pretty bad, just not as dismal as 2.1.

Let's not mince words: the line has been bad thus far. Hopefully, they'll get better but after 3 games, they appear to be a genuine liability.