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

[mansquatch]

I disagree to some extent on the "what if's" regarding his post on Babyface. Hail Mary picks are just not the same thing as an INT where the QB makes a terrible mistake. They are a pass that is only thrown when there is no time left on the clock and they are a jump ball. There is a reason they are called a "Hail Mary". Given the quality of his TD/INT ratio in the latter portion of the season, the fact that you can remove those 2 INT from his total is quite meaningful to the analysis of his development.

I do agree that Babyface should be credited with the two INT on the tipped balls. The pass to CP84 was catchable, but it was behind CP84, so he had to work for it. I do think he should make that catch most, if not all the time. BUT, it wouldn't be a pick if Babyface had properly placed it in front on his WR vs. behind, so IMO he deserves the INT in his stat line.

Regardless 13 TD to 5 INT is pretty darn good.

[Purple Reign]

I disagree to some extent on the "what if's" regarding his post on Babyface. Hail Mary picks are just not the same thing as an INT where the QB makes a terrible mistake. They are a pass that is only thrown when there is no time left on the clock and they are a jump ball. There is a reason they are called a "Hail Mary". Given the quality of his TD/INT ratio in the latter portion of the season, the fact that you can remove those 2 INT from his total is quite meaningful to the analysis of his development.

I'm not saying that the Hail Mary interceptions are the same as a mistake by the QB, but if you say the fact that you can remove those 2 ints from his total is quite meaningful then you also have to add the 2 ints that were dropped and were mistakes by Teddy, you can't cherry pick which ones should count and which ones shouldn't.

[mansquatch]

I'm not saying that the Hail Mary interceptions are the same as a mistake by the QB, but if you say the fact that you can remove those 2 ints from his total is quite meaningful then you also have to add the 2 ints that were dropped and were mistakes by Teddy, you can't cherry pick which ones should count and which ones shouldn't.

That is a fair statement.

[sneaxsneax]

That is a fair statement.

I think it's fair to omit those when it comes to evaluating Teddy's performance. It's not like we are taking them out recalculating his qbr and making statements about how he's better than qb xyz because of it. You take those INTs out because they aren't his fault, and it paints a picture of what teddy really did this year, which was pretty damn awesome. I can assure you when the coaching staff goes into reviewing teddy tape, they don't look at the hail marry and try to find out why he threw that pick as if it was his error.

[cstelter]

I'm not saying that the Hail Mary interceptions are the same as a mistake by the QB, but if you say the fact that you can remove those 2 ints from his total is quite meaningful then you also have to add the 2 ints that were dropped and were mistakes by Teddy, you can't cherry pick which ones should count and which ones shouldn't.

I'm partially on board with you, but I think I have to disagree about the half time hail mary. And I'm on the fence about the end of game hail mary.

I fully agree that stats even themselves out to a great extent. Sometimes the receiver makes a hands of stone tip to cause an INT that goes on the QB's record and sometimes there is a very good reason the DB is a DB and not a WR and the QB gets lucky that a sure INT did not turn out to be an INT.

But why is an INT worth tracking in the first place? It's because of the negative effect it can have on a game. Throwing an INT on a hail mary at the end of the half when you are already ahead has absolutely no negative impact. Throwing an INT that gets run back for a TD in the same scenario OTOH would be a negative impact, but that's more on the coach than the QB and the coach had better have the team ready to avoid any such runback in that scenario.

It's a risk that the hail mary may be intercepted but a very low risk that it will be run back for points. It's also an opportunity to go into half with 7 extra points. Why not throw that pass with the potential upside and very minimal likelihood of downside. The only benefit the other team gets from the INT is the same benefit had they simply knocked it down. That INT is not an INT in the spirit of why we track it. The other two you speak of *are* still INTs and they do balance themselves out and I agree you can't cherry pick those.

I'm less convinced about an INT on a hail mary at the end of the game. While much of what can be said about the first case is also true for the second case, one key distinguishing is that the team was out of options-- it had to throw that risky pass to have any chance at winning. The team was behind. and if you charge the QB with an INT in that scenario I can see how one could argue that position, but I'm a bit on the fence.

But throwing a hail mary at half (especially when ahead) that results in an INT simply doesn't meet the standard of why we track the INT in the first place. So of the 4 INT's in question the one against the Jets I feel can easily be omitted from any such discussion and *probably* the one at the end of the bears game. But I agree with you on the other 2-- there are balances to justify keeping those.

[mansquatch]

I agree with Purple Reign that if you recast this INT that were not his fault, then you should probably also recast the "almost INT" where Teddy got lucky. You can recast this thing until we are blue in the face. I'm recanting my previous position. I think the stat line is what it is, both good and bad.

The good news is that even with those INT, Babyface was still pretty awesome. Excited to see what he does in 2015.

[Purple Reign]

I think it's fair to omit those when it comes to evaluating Teddy's performance. It's not like we are taking them out recalculating his qbr and making statements about how he's better than qb xyz because of it. You take those INTs out because they aren't his fault, and it paints a picture of what teddy really did this year, which was pretty damn awesome. I can assure you when the coaching staff goes into reviewing teddy tape, they don't look at the hail marry and try to find out why he threw that pick as if it was his error.

Obviously the coaches aren't going to be concerned about interceptions on a Hail Mary, but I can assure you they will look at the 2 dropped interceptions because they were mistakes by Teddy but fortunately didn't end up as ints. So again, if you think it's fair to omit the 2 Hail Mary's then you have to include the 2 interceptions that were dropped when evaluating Teddy's performance.

[Mothman]

It's beyond generous to call the deep pass late in that Bears game a Hail Mary. That was not a "Hail Mary" situation, the Vikes didn't execute the play as if it was a Hail Mary and the Bears didn't defend it that way either. It was just an ill-advised deep throw late in the game. There was well over half a minute remaining and the Vikings were at the Chicago 29 so there was no need to force that pass and there's no compelling reason to excuse it.

The Hail Mary against the Jets was an actual Hail Mary play and while that INT counts statistically, it was utterly inconsequential. Bridgewater certainly did nothing wrong on the play.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, but I'm still hoping that one of these days we'll get to one where we'll be saying, "Well, they just won the Super Bowl and they're pretty loaded but I supposed they could use a backup safety in the draft."

HERE HERE!!!!!!! I vote for that one!!! It would be nice to have little to discuss in the offseason. Boring though......I'LL TAKE IT!!!!!!!
Still hoping too!!!!!

[Wild Bill]

Comparing 2013 and 2014, I'd say they are pointing in the right direction now more so than they were after 2013, but there is still work to be done -- the areas of trouble just shifted.

The major step forwards are the overall contribution of the defense and quarterback play.

TB was thrown into the starting role behind an offensive line that was struggling and having major injury concerns, without the best offensive weapon on the team, without a reliable running game, playing in a temporary home field and under a rookie head coach. And throughout it, he continued to improve. The poise he displayed, especially under those circumstances, gives me hope. He isn't a finished product, but he showed the qualities that are musts in a starting QB: playing well in crunch time, not getting rattled under duress and keeping his eyes down field under pressure.

After 2013, the QB situation was the biggest -- and most open -- question on the team. At least we aren't starting from square one on that front.

The running game now is a huge issue. McKinnon shows promise, but they have to find a compliment RB to couple him with -- unless the unlikely happens and Peterson remains on the roster.

The line DEFINITELY needs work, and that unit took a step back. The receivers are capable, but unspectacular. That is another area that needs improvement.

Having a new head coach almost always casts that season as a transitional year -- but having a rookie head coach always pushes said season in the rebuilding category. And, I liked what I saw. There were bumps in the road, and some very big surprises for Zimmer and I think he handled them well. He learned as the season went on, and the team kept playing when it was possible that the season could have gone off the rails.

He also revamped the defensive line, and as a unit, they were better than I anticipated they would be. Linebacker is still a work in progress, but Barr looks like he could be a game-changer. The secondary was much improved, although they still lack a few pieces -- but Rhodes took a giant leap, Smith picked up right where he left off before being injured and they were able to get off the field on third down with far more regularity.

Given all the adjustments a team must make when the regime changes and the problems that popped up over the course of the season, I'd say the arrow is pointing up. They aren't quite ready for prime time, but I'm more optimistic now than I was at the end of 2013.

Well said. The running game is a big question that we didn't think we had at the end of last season. Wide receiver and O line were problem areas last year and still are now. The only NEW problem is the running game while other weaknesses have seen improvement. Therefore I also feel we are better off.

[mondry]

I'm absolutely blown away so many people don't think we're better off. The talent is on the rise, the coaching was significantly improved, we won more games than last year without Adrian Peterson and using new defensive / offensive schemes, year 1 of a new coaching staff AND a rookie QB. The holes personnel wise are also few enough now where they could actually be addressed in one offseason.

The only real negative is the stats say we were worse offensively but that's easily explained. Last year, we played some absolutely awful defenses and we played the NFC east. The eagles, skins, and giants were all bad defensively and if we weren't dead last in something, the cowboys were. The bears D was bad, the Lions D wasn't nearly as good as they are this year, the packers probably didn't change enough to factor in so that's a wash but it all adds up. Oh and did I mention we didn't have that Adrian Peterson guy?

speaking of bad defense, turns out it's easier to score points when the other teams up by 3 TD's at half time and playing a prevent defense midway through the third quarter because your defense can't stop anyone. Dont fall for all those garbage time points like they actually matter. The game against SEA is the perfect example, (going off memory here) I don't think we scored a single point until later in the 4th quarter with the game basically over before we put up a fg and a td for 10 meaningless points. They may look nice on paper but do you think anyones looking back at the SEA game saying "wow our offense was really potent that day!" Of course not.

I like comparing us to the bears who I think are a good example of a team NOT better off than they were a year ago. Their defense is just getting older, they have no solution at QB on the roster, and they just fired their coach. They also did much worse offensively in the ranks AND worse than us scoring wise without any significant change like we had which goes hand and hand with my theory of the NFC north having a tougher schedule when it comes to the defenses that were faced.

So now just because I'm curious, here are the scoring ranks / points for.

2013

CHI - 2nd
GB - 8th
DET - 13th
MIN - 14th

2014
GB - 1st
MIN - 20th
DET - 22nd
CHI - 23rd

So everyone in the north "regressed" when it came to scoring except GB but it's important to note Aaron rodgers was hurt last year and missed a number of games. Clearly their offense is elite enough where it almost doesn't matter who they play.

All im trying to say is that aside from GB, we're actually slightly better / on par with both CHI and DET when our offense is now considered the weak link. It's all relative boys.

[Purple Reign]

I'm absolutely blown away so many people don't think we're better off.

Are you reading a different thread than I am? Show me one post in this thread that says were aren't better off than last year as a team. Everyone has pretty much said that overall we are better off. Yes, there are a few posts pointing out certain areas that need improvement, but that's not saying as a team we aren't better off.

[808vikingsfan]

Are you reading a different thread than I am? Show me one post in this thread that says were aren't better off than last year as a team. Everyone has pretty much said that overall we are better off. Yes, there are a few posts pointing out certain areas that need improvement, but that's not saying as a team we aren't better off.

I think just the fact that this question is being asked shows doubt which way this team is headed and is a bit surprising. Surprising, and yet not so much because of where this team takes us every year.

[Raggamont]

I'll be honest, I didn't get to read all the answers but there is a single reason I believe we have a good team: the Vikings only lost one game by more than 8 points (one possesion) when Bridgewater started, and that was Teddy's 2nd start against the best defense of the league. Good teams can loose close games, since statistics have proven that in the long run teams win about 50% of their one score games, but they rarely get blown out.

Statistically it is BS the saying that "good teams win close games", au-contraire, good teams win by blowouts and don't get blown out, and I believe, since Teddy took over they beat Carolina by 18 and lost againt the Lions by 14 (I'm not counting the thrashing in Green Bay because, you know... Ponder) so to be fair we have a mediocre team, like most 7-9 teams, but they were mediocre without Peterson or Cassel, a regressing offensive line and new offensive and defensive systems.

Let's face it, if at the beggining of the season they would've told me that Peterson was going to play only one game, the Peterson situation would become the circus and distraction it became, Cassel was going to play three games beacuse of injury, Ponder would start one, Patterson was going to play so poorly, the offensive line was going to loose 3 starters and Barr would loose 4 games, I would've guessed the Vikes would win 4 games tops.

Raggamont

[Demi]

There are really people that don't feel the team is better off than it was a year ago?