Wildcard at Saints pre game

[CharVike]

I'm glad the Vikings are underdogs. I'm glad nobody is giving them a chance.

Finally, they can just go out and play.

This team has the potential to be the next 1987 squad. That squad kicked booty until they ended up favored against the Redskins. I hope this year's squad remains the underdogs right through their eventual Superbowl victory.

Definitely!

To get anywhere, we have to face the 2 best NFC opponents in the next 2 weeks. If we get past them, the confidence will be through the roof. We're not a typical 6 seed. We've had some stinkers this year, but for the most part we've played well. Hopefully we get on a nice run like the last time we had a horrible game.

I'm not predicting anything, but it would be blast wouldn't it?

Indoor and turf I think is the best. This 87 stuff keeps going around. That 87 squad was a much better team. That team lost games during the regular season because of the replacement games. I think we lost all of them. But that 87 team could play some D. We don't have a DT that can even be mentioned with Millard. And Doleman. Forget it but that team was 10 times more talented than this squad IMO. We are a typical 6th seed. We beat all the garbage we played and when we had to beat a good team we couldn't. That last Pack game showed the true colors. The Pack beat us to a pulp. They dominated the action across the board. They owned the LOS. They swept us this year. Doesn't that show anything? That 87 team never allowed that. The talent was too good. They took over the LOS. IMO it all starts there. Looks like the NFL has three levels now. Top teams, decent teams and jokes. The bottom two levels can't beat the top teams. That's why they are were they are at. This year worked for us because we didn't let a garbage team beat us. If we did we would be at home right now. I'd rather play the Eagles. We are better than them. That has been proven. This Saint team will come down to three things. Cook needs to explode just like D Nelson did in 87, our D needs to apply tremendous pressure and then our Special Teams need to make a play. If all that happens we will win. No sense in looking backwards 30 years ago. That means nothing at this point.

[fiestavike]

Definitely!

To get anywhere, we have to face the 2 best NFC opponents in the next 2 weeks. If we get past them, the confidence will be through the roof. We're not a typical 6 seed. We've had some stinkers this year, but for the most part we've played well. Hopefully we get on a nice run like the last time we had a horrible game.

I'm not predicting anything, but it would be blast wouldn't it?

Indoor and turf I think is the best. This 87 stuff keeps going around. That 87 squad was a much better team. That team lost games during the regular season because of the replacement games. I think we lost all of them. But that 87 team could play some D. We don't have a DT that can even be mentioned with Millard. And Doleman. Forget it but that team was 10 times more talented than this squad IMO. We are a typical 6th seed. We beat all the garbage we played and when we had to beat a good team we couldn't. That last Pack game showed the true colors. The Pack beat us to a pulp. They dominated the action across the board. They owned the LOS. They swept us this year. Doesn't that show anything? That 87 team never allowed that. The talent was too good. They took over the LOS. IMO it all starts there. Looks like the NFL has three levels now. Top teams, decent teams and jokes. The bottom two levels can't beat the top teams. That's why they are were they are at. This year worked for us because we didn't let a garbage team beat us. If we did we would be at home right now. I'd rather play the Eagles. We are better than them. That has been proven. This Saint team will come down to three things. Cook needs to explode just like D Nelson did in 87, our D needs to apply tremendous pressure and then our Special Teams need to make a play. If all that happens we will win. No sense in looking backwards 30 years ago. That means nothing at this point.

Its a good step to not let the garbage teams beat you. Of course, its not enough. You have to be able to compete against the top teams to be a real contender, and I agree this Vikings team is not there...but they aren't that far away either. I'm really going to be curious to see what they do this next off season. It seems like a real possibility to blow it up, or to double down with Cousins for the longterm, or to let it ride another season without making meaningful commitments beyond that. I have my concerns with all of those approaches if they aren't handled correctly.

[Dames]

Indoor and turf I think is the best. This 87 stuff keeps going around. That 87 squad was a much better team. That team lost games during the regular season because of the replacement games. I think we lost all of them. But that 87 team could play some D. We don't have a DT that can even be mentioned with Millard. And Doleman. Forget it but that team was 10 times more talented than this squad IMO. We are a typical 6th seed. We beat all the garbage we played and when we had to beat a good team we couldn't. That last Pack game showed the true colors. The Pack beat us to a pulp. They dominated the action across the board. They owned the LOS. They swept us this year. Doesn't that show anything? That 87 team never allowed that. The talent was too good. They took over the LOS. IMO it all starts there. Looks like the NFL has three levels now. Top teams, decent teams and jokes. The bottom two levels can't beat the top teams. That's why they are were they are at. This year worked for us because we didn't let a garbage team beat us. If we did we would be at home right now. I'd rather play the Eagles. We are better than them. That has been proven. This Saint team will come down to three things. Cook needs to explode just like D Nelson did in 87, our D needs to apply tremendous pressure and then our Special Teams need to make a play. If all that happens we will win. No sense in looking backwards 30 years ago. That means nothing at this point.

87 was a better D than this year, but I wouldn't say they are 10 times better. I don't think we are typical 6 seed at all, our point differential is better than most 6 seeds, and in line with some of the better 6 seeds in recent history. We dominated poor competition generally, and we lost close games against better competition. Yep, we had some awful games vs GB, but against the rest of the playoffs teams we faced, we were highly competitive. We dominated Philly, even though they are clearly the weakest playoff team. Still they are a playoff team. We are far from a pushover. We drew 1 of the toughest teams in the playoffs round 1 though, but even they have had some stinkers this year.

I agree that Cook is a huge key to this game. Even if he isn't completely effective, we need him to keep their D from making us one dimensional. They have to respect Cook if he's in the game. If he dominates, it could be fun afternoon.

[Dames]

Its a good step to not let the garbage teams beat you. Of course, its not enough. You have to be able to compete against the top teams to be a real contender, and I agree this Vikings team is not there...but they aren't that far away either. I'm really going to be curious to see what they do this next off season. It seems like a real possibility to blow it up, or to double down with Cousins for the longterm, or to let it ride another season without making meaningful commitments beyond that. I have my concerns with all of those approaches if they aren't handled correctly.

They are definitely not far off. It may not be enough this year, but we can hope they find a spark and make a run. I think if they get past NO, they will be very dangerous. All the "experts" will be jumping on the bandwagon... but thankfully they would play SF, so nobody will believe in them for long, and they can keep the underdog role.

[VikingLord]

This 87 stuff keeps going around. That 87 squad was a much better team.

87 was much better?

Maybe in hindsight, but at the time, I don't think that is true.

That 87 team lost its final game against an average team that year (can't remember who it was) and needed another team to lose to make it into the playoffs. That was with those supposedly better players you mention. Not the replacements.

And in that game against the Saints, Kramer went out early and was replaced by Wade Wilson as the backup. I think the score was like 10-7 when that happened. Wilson, who had literally nothing to lose, came in and started chucking it around and the rest is history. It wasn't Darren Nelson going off IIRC. Anthony Carter did, though, mostly because Wilson wasn't afraid to feed him and kept feeding him.

Yeah, it's not 1987. I don't bring up 1987 as a parallel, but more to make the point that it is possible for a team like the 2019 Vikings to go into New Orleans against a heavily favored opponent and come out victorious. Will they? Who knows? But it can happen because it's happened before, and the 2019 Vikings certainly have the talent to do it.

Another similarity with 1987 is the utter lack of respect the Vikings of 2019 are getting going into this game. The 1987 Vikings who backed into the playoffs deserved that to a great degree, and the 2019 Vikings who had their hats handed to them at home by the Packers deserve it too. But neither team deserved it if the entire season and their overall talent levels were considered. Both were capable of performing much better than those single performances indicated.

I don't blame people for doubting the Vikings this year. I don't expect this upcoming game to be a repeat of the playoff game in 87 either. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Vikings win it, or even win it comfortably.

[mansquatch]

In a lot of ways this is the ultimate prove it game for this edition of the Vikings. Still, they have had four opportunities prior to this to "prove it." and in all of those opportunities they came up short.

Cliff notes version:

@GB: Week 2, Defense tanked early, but then got it's crap together. Offense was a hot mess as system was still in the "install" phase. IMO, this is excusable for September in the NFL, especially when you consider it was a brand new scheme and OC.

@KC: They should have won this game, but their defensive secondary woes showed up big. Also, the 3 and out at the end of the 4Q was a disaster. That can't happen in the post season.

@SEA: They were great in the 1st half of this game and then layed a total egg in the 3rd Quarter. 2 Giveaways, collapse in rush D, etc. Ended up losing by 1 score. Can't commit turnovers like this. Cook injury hurt them, but this was a massive collapse coaching wise. They need to be tougher than they were in this game.

Home vs. GB: This game sucked the most IMO. Defense played good enough to win, but Offensive game plan was a complete disaster. Big question: How much of this was on the coaches and how much of it was them being limited by Mike Boone as the starting RB?

Analysis and Opinion:
Obviously after the losses to GB and CHI early the offense turned the corner. Other than the 4Q failure in KC it was pretty good until the SEA game. I'm convinced Cook was either starting to wear down ahead of that game or got injured on one of those nasty hits by Clowney. IMO, you could see that he wasn't right in the SEA game and they haven't quite looked the same since. Wisely, they sat him.

Defensively, the woes in the secondary were pretty awful midseason, but things did seem to get somewhat better later in the season. IMO this more of a "it wasn't as bad" then greatly improved. .

Offensive Coaching in big games is an issue for me. We've seen them lay eggs when they needed to be crisp (KC), cough up turnovers when they were otherwise competitive (SEA) and just completely outsmart themselves (Home vs. GB). We've yet to see them really show up big in a game that matters.

So this leads me to three obvious questions for Sunday:
1.) Is the offense back to form?
2.) Are Pass Defense issues sufficiently resolved enough for us to win in the Super Dome?
3.) Will the offensive coaching staff help us or hurt us? Are they read to turn the corner in a big game?

#1 is what it is. If Cook and Mattison are not up to snuff I think this game is going to be very hard for us to win. We need the Saints defense to have to worry about our rushing attack. If not, then our OL will not be able to hold up in the passing game.

For #2, I think it is fair to add that in general Zimmer has had Sean Peyton's number defensively. The record doesn't necessarily show this since we lost to them last year, but that game was lost on bad turnovers by the offense and a questionable coaching decision on 4th down. We basically spotted them 17 points. That being said, are the 2019 version of the CBs going to execute well enough to win?

Honestly, I'm most worried about #3. Stefanski has yet to show us something great in a clutch moment vs. a quality opponent. This worries me against a QB like Brees. At some point in this game we are going to need a drive to close them out. The secondary isn't likely to do what it did vs. Denver. Also. there is some risk that the game plan could be a dumpster fire, especially if someone critical goes down. (I think this was part of the issue with KC and Thielen.)

Last Chance to turn the corner in 2019. A lot of threads are going to come to a head in this game. If they win, they will be turning the page as a club and I think they could go on a run in the post season. A win will be a huge confidence booster. However, I get why everyone is writing them off, they haven't shown they can do it. We'll find out soon enough.

[Rhodes Closed]

Always the optimist, I just want to point out New Orleans is 3-1 against Minnesota in the playoffs. If Favre didn't turn the ball over, they would have been 4-0. So New Orleans has to beat us. Not the other way around.

[Dames]

Always the optimist, I just want to point out New Orleans is 3-1 against Minnesota in the playoffs. If Favre didn't turn the ball over, they would have been 4-0. So New Orleans has to beat us. Not the other way around.

You said that backwards since the Vikings are 3-1, but I know what you meant! There will be some pressure on Sean Payton to beat us. Hopefully he over-thinks it some

[StumpHunter]

I do not understand why he played Sunday and Rhodes and Waynes sat. Why do you play your best CB in a meaningless game?

The CBs did look pretty good in that game. I also feel like Everson Griffen should maybe be coming on situationally rather than starting. I think Stephen Weatherly is a better all around DE at this point.

Weatherly is already in their on most passing downs at DT I believe.

Griffen started out hot but has slowed down quite a bit. Right around when he hit his number for snaps and sacks that made him a free agent next season.

[CanUDiggsIt?]

It's all going to be about if our team comes out of the locker room with a spark under their butt, a good game plan from the coaches, and the ability to be aggressive, even if we are ahead. If we get conservative (run, run, pass; prevent D), I expect any lead to go away and turn into the Minneapolis Miracle BEFORE Diggs' remarkable catch... remember our team fell apart in the second half.

[Rhodes Closed]

Always the optimist, I just want to point out New Orleans is 3-1 against Minnesota in the playoffs. If Favre didn't turn the ball over, they would have been 4-0. So New Orleans has to beat us. Not the other way around.

You said that backwards since the Vikings are 3-1, but I know what you meant! There will be some pressure on Sean Payton to beat us. Hopefully he over-thinks it some

Right. I'm a derp.

[fiestavike]

The CBs did look pretty good in that game. I also feel like Everson Griffen should maybe be coming on situationally rather than starting. I think Stephen Weatherly is a better all around DE at this point.

Weatherly is already in their on most passing downs at DT I believe.

Griffen started out hot but has slowed down quite a bit. Right around when he hit his number for snaps and sacks that made him a free agent next season.

Griffen has made a pattern out of starting hot and slowing down, usually with foot problems cropping up, but I haven't seen much fire out of him this season.

[quiznut1]

Let's be real.

We may win this weekend, but beyond that we're done.

We haven't shown the poise to stay disciplined, play decently well on all sides of the ball in those golden opportunities, and beat a winning record team all year. And we expect them to just "turn the switch on" now in the playoffs, and if so, sustain for more than one game? Let's not kid ourselves.

If we can win this weekend, hey - that's great. It would truly be a level of play I have yet to see this year when it really has mattered. But I'm not having high hopes, so I won't be that disappointed if we lose.

If we do win, it'll be an emotional high that I am predicting will not carry over to the Niners.

[VikingLord]

But I'm not having high hopes, so I won't be that disappointed if we lose.

If we do win, it'll be an emotional high that I am predicting will not carry over to the Niners.

I don't think anybody has high hopes for the Vikings this weekend, including the Vikings themselves.

With that said, New Orleans is getting uber-hyped, well beyond what they deserve in my view. Good team, yes. As dominant as they are being portrayed? As clear a difference between them and the Vikings as all of that hype seems to indicate?

Every objective analysis of the two teams suggests the actual gap between the two teams isn't nearly as wide as most believe, and for a substantial portion of this season Cousins outplayed Brees in pure statistical terms. Dalvin Cook has been far better than Kamara for the vast majority of the season, and Cook sat several games. Everyone talks about Thomas this and Thomas that, but the Vikings have two good and established receivers, not just one.

Defensively the Saints have Jordan. We have Hunter. I mean, you look up and down the teams and what really stands out is that the Saints have been hot recently and the Vikings have not. If people are good at one thing in life its drawing straight lines based on the recent past, and if you draw that line for the Saints and you draw it for the Vikings it's easy to conclude who "should win" the game and by how much.

But it's not that simple. Dalvin Cook could go off on a Saints defense that is missing it's starting interior linemen. Cousins could go off on a secondary that statistically ranks lower than the Vikings secondary if the Saints are forced to shift to stop that. Drew Brees could actually make a mistake or two, maybe even a costly mistake or two. And while I don't expect the Vikings defense to completely shut down the Saints, that part of the team really hasn't looked all that bad recently. If they can get the Saints into some favorable down-distance situations I think they can hold their own.

The difference between the two teams isn't great. The biggest difference between them is their final record and the fact that the Saints are playing at home. Beyond that, the teams are far more objectively evenly matched and if the Vikings play to their potential, which admittedly has been a challenge for them, they should be in a position to win this game.

[Mothman]

Good post, Mansquatch.

I have to add my #1 concern about this upcoming game (and a big concern with Zimmer's defense), which is something I feel often gets overlooked: run defense.

Take a look at the rushing yards allowed in the 4 games you mentioned:

@GB: 144 yards rushing
@KC: 147 yards rushing
@SEA: 218 yards rushing
GB: 184 yards rushing

That, my friends, is what losing football looks like.

I suspect Sean Payton is well aware of this weakness and I won't be surprised if the Saints try to exploit in on Sunday.