Vikings Message Board.Com

The thread got locked, but I find Norv Zimmer's typo of the Seattle RB's name amusing. Marshawn Lunch.

PacificNorseWest wrote:I honestly preferred that Lynch played. He was pretty ineffective before he got hurt and then he's out for a couple months and comes back against one of the best defenses in the league, being rusty in 1 degree weather? Yes, please.

He could have done something, but I think it was more likely he just ruins the flow the offense has been on the past few weeks as they try to get him involved. Now even more of a percentage of the plays will be dialed up specifically for Russell. That's the only guy that scares me.

Same, it's like the Packers force feeding Lacy when Rodgers is the ultimate weapon. Every run play would have been a load off our minds.

Mothman wrote:This is an interesting read:

Vikings-Seahawks Key Matchup: Bridgewater vs. the Legion of Boom
More at the link.

Good read, hopefully norv is up to the task, I don't want to see any 3rd and 12's after 2 failed runs. How Norv calls this game is by far the biggest wild card.

Mothman wrote:This is an interesting read:

Vikings-Seahawks Key Matchup: Bridgewater vs. the Legion of Boom

I think the assumption of almost everyone for this upcoming game is that Bridgewater will more resemble the QB we saw last weekend against Green Bay and the QB we've seen the majority of the year.

If they get more out of him, I think the Seahawks are in for a rude awakening quite frankly. If the Vikings are at full strength on defense, and the Seahawks can't run the ball, it could be a really long day for them.

How cold will it be?

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14532247

What I find interesting is that all of the national pundits assume that the Seattle team that is showing up tomorrow is the one who play in their 10 victories. If the team that played in their 6 losses shows up, it would be a completely different experience.

The "no respect" thing is good for us, though. I'm sure Zimmer is using it to its full potential.

The weather should be a factor. It should help the Vikings. That shouldn't be in dispute. The question is, how much?

Statistically, being a five point favorite means you win the game about two-thirds of the time. I don't see one-third of the pundits picking us.

John_Viveiros wrote:What I find interesting is that all of the national pundits assume that the Seattle team that is showing up tomorrow is the one who play in their 10 victories. If the team that played in their 6 losses shows up, it would be a completely different experience.

Seattle's won 6 of their last 7 and 8 of their last 10 games so "good Seattle' has been showing up a lot more than "bad Seattle" lately. i understand why the pundits expect that to happen again, especially since the Seahawks have won the NFC the past two years.

Mothman wrote: Seattle's won 6 of their last 7 and 8 of their last 10 games so "good Seattle' has been showing up a lot more than "bad Seattle" lately. i understand why the pundits expect that to happen again, especially since the Seahawks have won the NFC the past two years.

According to Michael Smith of ESPN, it's just a matter of how ugly the loss will be.

I expect them to shut down Adrian Peterson again, I expect the Vikings to go away from the run, ...and then afterward Adrian Peterson will complain about being out coached again.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14514775

808vikingsfan wrote:According to Michael Smith of ESPN, it's just a matter of how ugly the loss will be.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14514775

I mean...


Its not a bad prediction.

I expect it to be closer than last time by a lot and if we get a couple of lucky breaks at the right time (turnover, penalties, etc) I think we could win it But I can easily see us losing by a score or two and in the playoffs I think anything more than 8 points is usually considered an ugly loss.

Mothman wrote: Seattle's won 6 of their last 7 and 8 of their last 10 games so "good Seattle' has been showing up a lot more than "bad Seattle" lately. i understand why the pundits expect that to happen again, especially since the Seahawks have won the NFC the past two years.

Definitely could make that argument, then again the Vikings have won 7 or their last 10 games. How much "hotter" is Seattle really, or have they simply run into a much easier run in their schedule. Keep this in mind, in those 10 games, the only teams with winning records they beat were Pittsburgh, a Vikings team missing their 3 best defensive players and a Arizona team that some will argue didn't have much to play for.

Many people have argued the Vikings can't beat the better teams in the league, and when the Vikings have put together great games or consecutive wins against bad teams, it's because of their weak schedule. But when the Seahawks do it, it's because they are "getting hot". Keep in mind this, the Vikings record this season vs. teams in the playoffs is 2-4. Seattle's record vs teams in the playoffs is 3-4.

I'm not saying Seattle isn't playing well, or that they aren't a scary team. I'm simply pointing out that the media hype has potentially manipulated our perspectives on the perceived juggernaut that is the "red hot" Seahawks, while downplaying the wins the Vikings have put together recently. When Seattle beats up on a 3-13 Browns team, it's because they are so "hot". When the Vikings beat up on a 6-10 Chicago Bears team, it's not that impressive because the Bears suck.

saint33 wrote: Definitely could make that argument, then again the Vikings have won 7 or their last 10 games. How much "hotter" is Seattle really, or have they simply run into a much easier run in their schedule. Keep this in mind, in those 10 games, the only teams with winning records they beat were Pittsburgh, a Vikings team missing their 3 best defensive players and a Arizona team that some will argue didn't have much to play for.

Many people have argued the Vikings can't beat the better teams in the league, and when the Vikings have put together great games or consecutive wins against bad teams, it's because of their weak schedule. But when the Seahawks do it, it's because they are "getting hot". Keep in mind this, the Vikings record this season vs. teams in the playoffs is 2-4. Seattle's record vs teams in the playoffs is 3-4.

I'm not saying Seattle isn't playing well, or that they aren't a scary team. I'm simply pointing out that the media hype has potentially manipulated our perspectives on the perceived juggernaut that is the "red hot" Seahawks, while downplaying the wins the Vikings have put together recently. When Seattle beats up on a 3-13 Browns team, it's because they are so "hot". When the Vikings beat up on a 6-10 Chicago Bears team, it's not that impressive because the Bears suck.

Vikings were the last team to beat the Chiefs before they went on their run of wins. Never mentioned in the press.

saint33 wrote: Definitely could make that argument, then again the Vikings have won 7 or their last 10 games. How much "hotter" is Seattle really, or have they simply run into a much easier run in their schedule. Keep this in mind, in those 10 games, the only teams with winning records they beat were Pittsburgh, a Vikings team missing their 3 best defensive players and a Arizona team that some will argue didn't have much to play for.

Many people have argued the Vikings can't beat the better teams in the league, and when the Vikings have put together great games or consecutive wins against bad teams, it's because of their weak schedule. But when the Seahawks do it, it's because they are "getting hot". Keep in mind this, the Vikings record this season vs. teams in the playoffs is 2-4. Seattle's record vs teams in the playoffs is 3-4.

I'm not saying Seattle isn't playing well, or that they aren't a scary team. I'm simply pointing out that the media hype has potentially manipulated our perspectives on the perceived juggernaut that is the "red hot" Seahawks, while downplaying the wins the Vikings have put together recently. When Seattle beats up on a 3-13 Browns team, it's because they are so "hot". When the Vikings beat up on a 6-10 Chicago Bears team, it's not that impressive because the Bears suck.

I think a lot of weight goes to the head to head without stating so.

If we had beat them 38-7 last time at home I think most pundits would be saying "uhoh, sucks to be the Seahawks"

IrishViking wrote:I think a lot of weight goes to the head to head without stating so.

If we had beat them 38-7 last time at home I think most pundits would be saying "uhoh, sucks to be the Seahawks"

Exactly and the vast majority of the predictions and game previews I read this week gave the Vikes a legitimate chance to pull off the upset. The cold weather seems to have furthered that view.

I can't fault most of the media types for picking the Seahawks. They have the better QB, considerably more playoff experience and a recent track record of tremendous postseason success. Add in that blowout win over the Vikes a little over a month ago and they deserve to be favored.

That doesn't mean they'll win.

fiestavike wrote: They've certainly got all the pressure on them.

Honestly, I don't think your first game against them was indicative of where you stand in comparison, I think you guys are the better team right now.

Vikings are going to win. I can feel it in my bones.

808vikingsfan wrote: Funny how he was at full practice the entire week. Wonder if it was just a ploy so the Vikings had to spend time and watch film to prepare for him.

I found it odd that Pete Carroll was making a big deal last Sunday night about Marshawn Lynch returning from his injury this week too. This is Carrol talking about Lynch playing yesterday. http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... days-game/ It had to be a ploy. If Lynch really was well enough to play, I would expect Carroll to downgrade his chances of returning so the Vikings wouldn't prepare adequately for him. Yesterday it was going to be a gametime decision. Yeah right.