What did I just watch?

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

We are not delusional. The Vikings are not the best team. But...and I can't stress this enough...they are GOOD ENOUGH! The important thing here is that they have a good chance to be the #2 seed. There is also a good chance that the Eagles will play the Cowboys and lose, thus giving the Vikings homefield throughout. I will tell you that I am a big Washington fan for the rest of this regular season because I don't want Detroit sneaking into the 7th seed. I would much rather play NYG, WAS or SEA in that first game. If they advance, then a probable matchup against the 49ers...but again, this will be at home if they maintain the #2 seed. Bottom line is, they aren't the best team, but they are GOOD ENOUGH to beat anyone they will play in the playoffs.

[J. Kapp 11]

My take? We're not as good as our record might indicate and the Colts are not as bad as theirs would indicate.

Phil Mackey put it pretty well yesterday: This iteration of the Vikings is the Rocky Baloa of the NFL. I think that's accurate. Like Rocky, we have way more heart (desire, determination, passion) than technical skill. Refuse to give up. Always willing their way off the canvas when everyone thinks it's over.

Yo, Adrian!!!!

Some follow up thoughts on this:
1) take a look at the points differential for other teams with 10 wins or more: Buffalo +135, Cincy +81, KC +92, Philly +143, Dallas +125, SF +128. The Vikings? +2.

2) Other teams within 10 of our +2 point differential (and their records): Miami (8-6), Jacksonville (6-8), Raiders (6-8), Commanders (7-6-1), Lions (7-7), Seahawks (7-7).

Conclusion: Of these two tiers, where do the Vikings fit better? Our record says we're with the Bills, KC, Philly, SF and Dallas, but our point differential says Seahawks, Lions, Commanders, and Raiders, et al.

Simple answer.

“You are what your record says you are.” — Bill Parcells

[VikingLord]

I'm not sure I'm going to make it to the end of this season, but it just feels like this team is going to find a way.

VL, please tell me you're not dying of cancer (or something else).

I agree with so many of your points. The Refs were so bad in this game that it was hard to believe. I honestly felt like the game might have been fixed at one point.

I also haven't seen anyone take KOC to task for two very questionable play calls: 1) the fake punt (I could see it coming a mile away, so even Jeff Saturday must have) 2) 4th and one and you run a jet sweep to Ham Sammich? Of all the guys to run that, Ham is your choice?

I also have to critique my boy from TCU, Jalen Reagor, who caused two interceptions--one being a pick six. I'm afraid to say that this is probably why he hasn't lived up to his draft pick value. Maybe I'm being too harsh and he just needs more time to work with Kirk and learn the playbook well, but man those were costly and frustrating mishaps.

I'm not dying - but I'm not sure how much more of these crazy games I can take this season.

Not sure what Reagor was doing or why he seemed to adjust his routes like he did. The first pick was puzzling, but the second was discouraging because he clearly let up on the route.

On the flip side, he had a really nice punt return negated by a phantom face mask call.

The NFL needs to be able to review any error, and the refs should err on the side of caution when blowing their whistles and only end a play when it is clearly dead. Whether a play is clearly dead can always be reviewed, but once a whistle is blown on the field, anything that happens after that point cannot be reviewed, and lately, at least, that has cost the Vikings several huge plays, possibly game-changing plays. I realize that works both ways and it could go against the Vikings too, but just in the interest of fairness and correct outcomes I'd like to see the refs be less a factor and let replay do it's job if it's even close to in doubt.

[VikingLord]

I'm still not sure what that was yesterday.

I've been doing this a LONG time, as have some of you. I've seen crazy stuff go against us — the stupid Hail Mary in '75 — and for us — Kramer to Rashad in '80, the Minneapolis Miracle. But all of those things were single moments. This was ... a marathon of delirious moments.

When the Colts went for it on 4th and 1 and didn't get it ... even though it appeared they clearly did (yet another example of the lousy officiating that seems to be plaguing the entire league and bit the Vikings multiple times against the Colts) ... I thought maybe Kirk could drive them down the field and get the tying score. Then they get it all on one amazing play to Cook. On a screen pass, no less, which they've executed terribly for as long as I can remember. All this AFTER Jalen Reagor gets his QB picked because he somehow decides in the middle of a play to not play football anymore.

Don't know if you guys got a chance to read, but in the locker room at halftime, it was Patrick Peterson who motived the team. He said, "All we need is five touchdowns." I mean ... what? Kirk Cousins didn't know if he was serious or sarcastic. But Kevin O'Connell knew. Peterson was going out on a limb and telling the offense, "We're not giving up anything else. Go out and get us 5 touchdowns ... one at a time."

I'm not sure what's more outrageous ... the Vikings scoring 39 points in a half or Peterson guaranteeing this god-awful defense would actually stop somebody, then going out and doing it. But the Vikings had each other's backs. They went out and did it.

All told, I've watched the second half three times now. The last time, I put it through my sound system and cranked it until just below the point of my neighbors calling the police. I was trying to imagine what it was like to be there. My gosh, we have great fans. They hung around. They got louder and louder and louder. And they NEVER let up for the entire half. Incredible.

I've said it many times. Yes, I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl while I'm still on this planet. But man, I love the journey, especially when it involves games like this. I thought the Buffalo game was the greatest I'd ever seen. Not anymore. Just ... wow.

I totally agree. I thought Ryan made it too on the 4th and 1. I thought we’ll, maybe a makeup call for all the bulls$$$t calls that went against us.

Depends on when they blew the whistle. Was Ryan across the line-to-gain with the ball once he was clearly down? Yup. Was the ball across the line-to-gain when the refs blew the play dead? Apparently not.

And that would continue a string of such plays just in that game where a whistle blew the play dead prematurely. Sullivan had not one, but two, fumbles he returned for TDs negated by quick whistles. Had just one of those counted the result of Ryan's play wouldn't have mattered. Had both counted, it really wouldn't have mattered.

So while I agree that Ryan got over the line, I also agree that the Vikings were robbed of 14 points. And if someone is a Colts fan, I don't see how they can get too upset as a result.

Besides, had Saturday just kicked the field goal there, the Colts would have won the game outright. Indoors in that situation is a pretty safe bet. I'm not at all sure why he decided to go for it.

The refs really need to stay their whistles a bit. I mean, that's what the league has instant replay and booth review for - to ensure the right calls are made. If a guy might have stepped out of bounds at the 20, but it's not clear, there is no issue if the ref allows the play to proceed because either the play is automatically reviewed or the opposing coach can challenge it and get it reviewed. If the ref blows the play dead, however, it doesn't matter if the player actually stepped out or not because there can be no review.

There were enough critical calls in that game against the Colts alone where relatively quick whistles could have been decisive in the outcome and clearly affected the result of a play. Here's hoping the refs get that cleaned up as a group heading into the postseason. It would be a real shame for any team to lose a playoff game on the basis of an eager whistle.

[VikingLord]

I'm still not sure what that was yesterday.

I've been doing this a LONG time, as have some of you. I've seen crazy stuff go against us — the stupid Hail Mary in '75 — and for us — Kramer to Rashad in '80, the Minneapolis Miracle. But all of those things were single moments. This was ... a marathon of delirious moments.

When the Colts went for it on 4th and 1 and didn't get it ... even though it appeared they clearly did (yet another example of the lousy officiating that seems to be plaguing the entire league and bit the Vikings multiple times against the Colts) ... I thought maybe Kirk could drive them down the field and get the tying score. Then they get it all on one amazing play to Cook. On a screen pass, no less, which they've executed terribly for as long as I can remember. All this AFTER Jalen Reagor gets his QB picked because he somehow decides in the middle of a play to not play football anymore.

Don't know if you guys got a chance to read, but in the locker room at halftime, it was Patrick Peterson who motived the team. He said, "All we need is five touchdowns." I mean ... what? Kirk Cousins didn't know if he was serious or sarcastic. But Kevin O'Connell knew. Peterson was going out on a limb and telling the offense, "We're not giving up anything else. Go out and get us 5 touchdowns ... one at a time."

I'm not sure what's more outrageous ... the Vikings scoring 39 points in a half or Peterson guaranteeing this god-awful defense would actually stop somebody, then going out and doing it. But the Vikings had each other's backs. They went out and did it.

All told, I've watched the second half three times now. The last time, I put it through my sound system and cranked it until just below the point of my neighbors calling the police. I was trying to imagine what it was like to be there. My gosh, we have great fans. They hung around. They got louder and louder and louder. And they NEVER let up for the entire half. Incredible.

I've said it many times. Yes, I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl while I'm still on this planet. But man, I love the journey, especially when it involves games like this. I thought the Buffalo game was the greatest I'd ever seen. Not anymore. Just ... wow.

I actually watched the game a second time on Saturday night just because I wasn't sure I had just watched what I had watched, and I kid-you-not, even watching it that second time I was certain the Vikings were so far behind and could not possibly win that I almost turned it off a second time.

This entire season has been like that to a large degree. I'm watching Kirk Cousins take control and lead the team in situations where in past years I was sure he was going to crumble. I'm watching a team that by all accounts struggles to play defense suddenly come up with big defensive plays just at the critical times when the team needs them. I'm watching an offense that at times looks like it can't get out of it's own way suddenly become unstoppable with huge play after huge play. And I'm watching a coaching staff that at times looks like it has no idea what it's doing suddenly call the perfect plays.

Every stat pretty much says the Vikings are about a .500 team, but they have the record of one of the best teams in the league. Just this year we've witnessed 2 games that will go down in history as among the most amazing wins this team has ever had.

And yesterday, we watched the Eagles barely beat the Bears and the Chiefs barely squeak past the Texans while the Cowboys fell to the Jags. So nobody should be saying anything about how the Vikings are barely winning. This is a year of unprecedented parity in the league, and clearly the records of a given team don't tell the whole story.

[Cliff]

My take? We're not as good as our record might indicate and the Colts are not as bad as theirs would indicate.

Phil Mackey put it pretty well yesterday: This iteration of the Vikings is the Rocky Baloa of the NFL. I think that's accurate. Like Rocky, we have way more heart (desire, determination, passion) than technical skill. Refuse to give up. Always willing their way off the canvas when everyone thinks it's over.

Yo, Adrian!!!!

Some follow up thoughts on this:
1) take a look at the points differential for other teams with 10 wins or more: Buffalo +135, Cincy +81, KC +92, Philly +143, Dallas +125, SF +128. The Vikings? +2.

2) Other teams within 10 of our +2 point differential (and their records): Miami (8-6), Jacksonville (6-8), Raiders (6-8), Commanders (7-6-1), Lions (7-7), Seahawks (7-7).

Conclusion: Of these two tiers, where do the Vikings fit better? Our record says we're with the Bills, KC, Philly, SF and Dallas, but our point differential says Seahawks, Lions, Commanders, and Raiders, et al.

I think it just illustrates the problem with the point differential statistic and calls into question its usefulness. Immediately the 40-3 beating against Dallas skews it quite a bit with this small of a sample size. Their victories have been mostly close games and their losses have been wider but is that conclusive at all? For me, all it does is confirm that teams with higher winning records usually have higher point differentials. That's usually accurate but so what if it's not? Do we immediately draw the conclusions that because teams win by more they're better?

Every week it's situational with a ton of variables. How does each team's scheme match up? Any injuries? Hell, how did your QB sleep last night? The Bills, for example, the only point differential that mattered was at the end of the game when they were -3. I think it bothers people that statistics can't predict everything perfectly.

[CharVike]

I'm still not sure what that was yesterday.

I've been doing this a LONG time, as have some of you. I've seen crazy stuff go against us — the stupid Hail Mary in '75 — and for us — Kramer to Rashad in '80, the Minneapolis Miracle. But all of those things were single moments. This was ... a marathon of delirious moments.

When the Colts went for it on 4th and 1 and didn't get it ... even though it appeared they clearly did (yet another example of the lousy officiating that seems to be plaguing the entire league and bit the Vikings multiple times against the Colts) ... I thought maybe Kirk could drive them down the field and get the tying score. Then they get it all on one amazing play to Cook. On a screen pass, no less, which they've executed terribly for as long as I can remember. All this AFTER Jalen Reagor gets his QB picked because he somehow decides in the middle of a play to not play football anymore.

Don't know if you guys got a chance to read, but in the locker room at halftime, it was Patrick Peterson who motived the team. He said, "All we need is five touchdowns." I mean ... what? Kirk Cousins didn't know if he was serious or sarcastic. But Kevin O'Connell knew. Peterson was going out on a limb and telling the offense, "We're not giving up anything else. Go out and get us 5 touchdowns ... one at a time."

I'm not sure what's more outrageous ... the Vikings scoring 39 points in a half or Peterson guaranteeing this god-awful defense would actually stop somebody, then going out and doing it. But the Vikings had each other's backs. They went out and did it.

All told, I've watched the second half three times now. The last time, I put it through my sound system and cranked it until just below the point of my neighbors calling the police. I was trying to imagine what it was like to be there. My gosh, we have great fans. They hung around. They got louder and louder and louder. And they NEVER let up for the entire half. Incredible.

I've said it many times. Yes, I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl while I'm still on this planet. But man, I love the journey, especially when it involves games like this. I thought the Buffalo game was the greatest I'd ever seen. Not anymore. Just ... wow.

I actually watched the game a second time on Saturday night just because I wasn't sure I had just watched what I had watched, and I kid-you-not, even watching it that second time I was certain the Vikings were so far behind and could not possibly win that I almost turned it off a second time.

This entire season has been like that to a large degree. I'm watching Kirk Cousins take control and lead the team in situations where in past years I was sure he was going to crumble. I'm watching a team that by all accounts struggles to play defense suddenly come up with big defensive plays just at the critical times when the team needs them. I'm watching an offense that at times looks like it can't get out of it's own way suddenly become unstoppable with huge play after huge play. And I'm watching a coaching staff that at times looks like it has no idea what it's doing suddenly call the perfect plays.

Every stat pretty much says the Vikings are about a .500 team, but they have the record of one of the best teams in the league. Just this year we've witnessed 2 games that will go down in history as among the most amazing wins this team has ever had.

And yesterday, we watched the Eagles barely beat the Bears and the Chiefs barely squeak past the Texans while the Cowboys fell to the Jags. So nobody should be saying anything about how the Vikings are barely winning. This is a year of unprecedented parity in the league, and clearly the records of a given team don't tell the whole story.

Those 3 games you mentioned from yesterday I was going to point out the same thing. Some think we should go out and pound teams into the ground and walk away with easy wins. That hardly ever happens. Our 15-1 team beat teams badly but when we were in a battle the Champ game we couldn't seal the deal. The Eagles keep pounding Hurts like he's a running back and that will take it's toll on a player. Plus getting hit in the pocket. This isn't college pro players are big, fast and strong. They want to keep their jobs and will hit people. The Bucs are leading a division with a crap record. But they play D and Brady is still Brady. IMO the 49ers are the team to beat. They are a tough team that plays good D and they know what the playoffs are about. They will turn it up.

[Texas Vike]

Some follow up thoughts on this:
1) take a look at the points differential for other teams with 10 wins or more: Buffalo +135, Cincy +81, KC +92, Philly +143, Dallas +125, SF +128. The Vikings? +2.

2) Other teams within 10 of our +2 point differential (and their records): Miami (8-6), Jacksonville (6-8), Raiders (6-8), Commanders (7-6-1), Lions (7-7), Seahawks (7-7).

Conclusion: Of these two tiers, where do the Vikings fit better? Our record says we're with the Bills, KC, Philly, SF and Dallas, but our point differential says Seahawks, Lions, Commanders, and Raiders, et al.

I think it just illustrates the problem with the point differential statistic and calls into question its usefulness. Immediately the 40-3 beating against Dallas skews it quite a bit with this small of a sample size. Their victories have been mostly close games and their losses have been wider but is that conclusive at all? For me, all it does is confirm that teams with higher winning records usually have higher point differentials. That's usually accurate but so what if it's not? Do we immediately draw the conclusions that because teams win by more they're better?

Every week it's situational with a ton of variables. How does each team's scheme match up? Any injuries? Hell, how did your QB sleep last night? The Bills, for example, the only point differential that mattered was at the end of the game when they were -3. I think it bothers people that statistics can't predict everything perfectly.

Just to be clear, I don't really have a fully formed opinion on the questions I raised in that post, but I do think point differential is worth looking at, especially now that we have 14 games as our sample size and all teams have had their byes. I am trying to make sense of why the Vikings are getting disrespected in the media and in Vegas, and I suspect that this has a fair bit to do with it.

There are things that stats can't measure, like determination, desire, and leadership. Possessing those qualities helps a team get wins in very close games.

[Foreman44]

I actually watched the game a second time on Saturday night just because I wasn't sure I had just watched what I had watched, and I kid-you-not, even watching it that second time I was certain the Vikings were so far behind and could not possibly win that I almost turned it off a second time.

This entire season has been like that to a large degree. I'm watching Kirk Cousins take control and lead the team in situations where in past years I was sure he was going to crumble. I'm watching a team that by all accounts struggles to play defense suddenly come up with big defensive plays just at the critical times when the team needs them. I'm watching an offense that at times looks like it can't get out of it's own way suddenly become unstoppable with huge play after huge play. And I'm watching a coaching staff that at times looks like it has no idea what it's doing suddenly call the perfect plays.

Every stat pretty much says the Vikings are about a .500 team, but they have the record of one of the best teams in the league. Just this year we've witnessed 2 games that will go down in history as among the most amazing wins this team has ever had.

And yesterday, we watched the Eagles barely beat the Bears and the Chiefs barely squeak past the Texans while the Cowboys fell to the Jags. So nobody should be saying anything about how the Vikings are barely winning. This is a year of unprecedented parity in the league, and clearly the records of a given team don't tell the whole story.

Those 3 games you mentioned from yesterday I was going to point out the same thing. Some think we should go out and pound teams into the ground and walk away with easy wins. That hardly ever happens. Our 15-1 team beat teams badly but when we were in a battle the Champ game we couldn't seal the deal. The Eagles keep pounding Hurts like he's a running back and that will take it's toll on a player. Plus getting hit in the pocket. This isn't college pro players are big, fast and strong. They want to keep their jobs and will hit people. The Bucs are leading a division with a crap record. But they play D and Brady is still Brady. IMO the 49ers are the team to beat. They are a tough team that plays good D and they know what the playoffs are about. They will turn it up.

Think how ever you like. Good or bad.. we are in the playoffs. It’s a whole new season.. The year we lost the NFC Championship game to Atlanta. Were we not the best team in the NFL. But no super bowl.

Remember the pukers. Rodgers saying RELAX... Lost NFC championship game. BUT They scraped by just getting in the playoffs. Anything can happen.

We will need luck on our side

[VikingLord]

IMO the 49ers are the team to beat. They are a tough team that plays good D and they know what the playoffs are about. They will turn it up.

Yes, their defense is good, but to win you have to be able to score and to score you need a QB who can perform under pressure. Purdy looked good in his two stints so far, but it isn't uncommon for rookie QBs to look good in their first few starts because teams don't have any tape on them and their OC tends to dumb things down and keep them simple. You get a few quick scores and the defense plays strong and Purdy probably looked a lot better than he is.

For the record, this is what WalterFootball had to say about Purdy as a prospect before last year's draft (they had Purdy as their 7th rated QB prospect):

https://www.walterfootball.com/draft2022QB.php

I'm not saying Purdy can't pull off a series of performances like Nick Foles managed when he won the Superbowl with the Eagles. I'm just saying when push comes to shove and the 49ers are in a dogfight, that's when they'll find out if they've got a QB. Purdy hasn't been tested yet. Odds are good his first real test is going to come in a playoff game. The 49ers remaining schedule is moderately challenging with home games against the Commanders and Cardinals sandwiched around an away game with the Raiders. Those should provide some assessment of Purdy as a regular starter.

Not saying he won't pass those tests. Just that the 49ers have a HUGE question mark at QB right now, and it's extremely rare for teams to go deep into the postseason without at least solid QB play.

[Cliff]

I think it just illustrates the problem with the point differential statistic and calls into question its usefulness. Immediately the 40-3 beating against Dallas skews it quite a bit with this small of a sample size. Their victories have been mostly close games and their losses have been wider but is that conclusive at all? For me, all it does is confirm that teams with higher winning records usually have higher point differentials. That's usually accurate but so what if it's not? Do we immediately draw the conclusions that because teams win by more they're better?

Every week it's situational with a ton of variables. How does each team's scheme match up? Any injuries? Hell, how did your QB sleep last night? The Bills, for example, the only point differential that mattered was at the end of the game when they were -3. I think it bothers people that statistics can't predict everything perfectly.

Just to be clear, I don't really have a fully formed opinion on the questions I raised in that post, but I do think point differential is worth looking at, especially now that we have 14 games as our sample size and all teams have had their byes. I am trying to make sense of why the Vikings are getting disrespected in the media and in Vegas, and I suspect that this has a fair bit to do with it.

There are things that stats can't measure, like determination, desire, and leadership. Possessing those qualities helps a team get wins in very close games.

I gotcha, I was responding to it. The wins and losses are what matters to me. Especially when we're talking over the course of 14 games.

[chicagopurple]

If you are really full of determination, desire, and leadership, you should never look like we did for the first 3 quarters, and for many parts of games this year. There have been too many stretches, often against weak teams, where we were looking unprepared, unresponsive, and failing to adapt.

[Pondering Her Percy]

If you are really full of determination, desire, and leadership, you should never look like we did for the first 3 quarters, and for many parts of games this year. There have been too many stretches, often against weak teams, where we were looking unprepared, unresponsive, and failing to adapt.

I'm just curious, are you permanently miserable towards this team? Asking for a friend

[Texas Vike]

If you are really full of determination, desire, and leadership, you should never look like we did for the first 3 quarters, and for many parts of games this year. There have been too many stretches, often against weak teams, where we were looking unprepared, unresponsive, and failing to adapt.

I agree that those qualities apply to all 60 minutes of a game, but the ending is what matters.

I would argue that without exceptional determination, desire, and leadership, you have no chance to come back from 33-0, or whatever it was against the Bills (17?).

[Pondering Her Percy]

I would argue that without exceptional determination, desire, and leadership, you have no chance to come back from 33-0, or whatever it was against the Bills (17?).

10000% facts. There's actually zero chance they come back from 33-0 without exceptional determination, desire and leadership. Literally zero chance. I think it's clear that no matter what the Vikes do at this point it's not going to be good enough for some fans. Sad but true