Wildcard at Saints pre game

[PacificNorseWest]

Why are my expectations for this game slowly being raised?

[J. Kapp 11]

Gotta tell you, guys ... my loathing of the Saints is beginning to percolate.

This afternoon, I was driving and listen to NFL Radio. A guy from Texas calls and wants to talk about the Vikings. He shares passionately that he believes in the Vikings and that he felt good about the outcome. He then says he’ll hang up and listen.

Pat Kerwin and Jim Miller then proceed to spend the next 10 minutes talking about ... the Saints.

It was sickening. I mean, the guy called, spent 45 minutes on hold, and asked for some conversation about the Vikes. And they didn’t say a single word. They even talked about a potential matchup in Lambeau.

Later, a woman who called herself “Lady Who Dat” calls and talks about the Saints making it to the Super Bowl. Doesn’t even bother to mention this week’s game. When the hosts ask her about the Vikings, she just laughed and said they would be finished the moment the set foot in the Superdome. And the hosts didn’t challenge her.

The disrespect is beyond ridiculous, and it’s pissing me off.

I’m gonna say something here that belies everything I normally stand for, which is fact-based conversation. I think we’re going to win this game, and here’s the reason.

KARMA.

The superstitious idiots and all the voodoo people in Louisiana ought to understand this well. The Saints used up all their luck in 2009. They got away with murder, both with Bountygate and with the officials and all the terrible calls. And if you’ve noticed, they’ve had nothing but bad breaks ever since. This is karma, pure and simple. I can be superstitious, too. I believe Drew Brees and Sean Payton have played in their first and last Super Bowl. They’ll lose in the playoffs this year prior to the Super Bowl. Might as well be this Sunday.

SKOL! (A much manlier call for a team the. Who Dat.)

[fiestavike]

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.

Not an unfair stat, but a bit of context helps. The offense kept the defense on the field for a very long time (2 to 1 TOP in both games), particularly in those last two games listed there, which inflates those numbers a bit. SEA absolutely ran the Vikings over in that game, so you also can't just blame the TOP on the offense. Still, a bit more nuance is helpful.

[S197]

Mike Hughes moved to injured reserve and Mac Alexander ruled out.

[J. Kapp 11]

Mike Hughes moved to injured reserve and Mac Alexander ruled out.

This sucks.

We finally get everybody back on offense, and now this. Plus it’s not certain if Kendricks will play. Even Andrew Sendejo is questionable.

The Vikings signed Marcus Sherels. He’ll return punts. Hopefully he won’t have to play corner.

[Mothman]

Not an unfair stat, but a bit of context helps. The offense kept the defense on the field for a very long time (2 to 1 TOP in both games), particularly in those last two games listed there, which inflates those numbers a bit. SEA absolutely ran the Vikings over in that game, so you also can't just blame the TOP on the offense. Still, a bit more nuance is helpful.

Whether the offense is contributing to the problem or not, it's still a recipe for losing football games.

I understand how one unit can impact the other but the "offense kept the defense on the field" argument kind of breezes past the fact that the defense can control their own situation when they're on the field. If they wear down, it's usually because they aren't stopping the opposing offense, although turnovers and kick returns can sometimes put them back on the field too quickly.

[Mothman]

Mike Hughes moved to injured reserve and Mac Alexander ruled out.

This sucks.

We finally get everybody back on offense, and now this. Plus it’s not certain if Kendricks will play. Even Andrew Sendejo is questionable.

The Vikings signed Marcus Sherels. He’ll return punts. Hopefully he won’t have to play corner.

If Kendricks can't go, it would really hurt.

[CharVike]

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.

10 times is an expression of mine. As a team that D had 26 ints VS 17 for us this year. That's a huge difference. Browner had 6 and missed at least the 4 replacement games. Almost 1/2 of what our entire team had by one player. Doleman had 11 sacks and again missed 1/4 of the season at least. I'm nor sure what Millard had but he's much better than any guy we can send out there. Most have said the Saints are the team to play. I'd rather play the Eagles. We are better than that team. We are not a pushover I agree with that. But Cook is our main guy on O. We need him back and playing like he did the 1st half. Him playing at top form makes us a scary team. If he's second half Cook it takes a lot away from us. This O is designed around him. I don't even know what his problem is now. But he hasn't been the same the 2nd half. He's a very important piece and maybe the most important for this O we run.

[J. Kapp 11]

Not an unfair stat, but a bit of context helps. The offense kept the defense on the field for a very long time (2 to 1 TOP in both games), particularly in those last two games listed there, which inflates those numbers a bit. SEA absolutely ran the Vikings over in that game, so you also can't just blame the TOP on the offense. Still, a bit more nuance is helpful.

Whether the offense is contributing to the problem or not, it's still a recipe for losing football games.

I understand how one unit can impact the other but the "offense kept the defense on the field" argument kind of breezes past the fact that the defense can control their own situation when they're on the field. If they wear down, it's usually because they aren't stopping the opposing offense, although turnovers and kick returns can sometimes put them back on the field too quickly.

That is decidedly NOT what happened against Green Bay.

The defense was playing lights out against both the run and the pass. But the offense was so horribly inept that TOP was about 40-20 in favor of Green Bay. The defense definitely wore down that game, which is why Aaron Jones broke the big run. Even though we didn’t play our starters against Chicago, they had 37 minutes TOP. You can’t win that way.

[Mothman]

Whether the offense is contributing to the problem or not, it's still a recipe for losing football games.

I understand how one unit can impact the other but the "offense kept the defense on the field" argument kind of breezes past the fact that the defense can control their own situation when they're on the field. If they wear down, it's usually because they aren't stopping the opposing offense, although turnovers and kick returns can sometimes put them back on the field too quickly.

That is decidedly NOT what happened against Green Bay.

The defense was playing lights out against both the run and the pass. But the offense was so horribly inept that TOP was about 40-20 in favor of Green Bay. The defense definitely wore down that game, which is why Aaron Jones broke the big run.

The defense wore down but the Packers had 66 yards rushing and 221 yards of total offense by halftime. They had 3 sustained scoring drives (one was 13 plays long) in the first half. I thought the Vikings defense was opportunistic and they were able to bend without breaking for a while in that game but I wouldn't call it a "lights out" defensive performance. I think that first half production by the Packers undermines the argument that the Vikes wore down simply because their offense couldn't sustain drives.

Anyway, that was just one game. My point is the Vikings have had problems against the run. Let's not make excuses for them. In some games maybe it's as much of a team problem as a defensive problem but hopefully, we can all agree it's a problem.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Mike Hughes moved to injured reserve and Mac Alexander ruled out.

This sucks.

We finally get everybody back on offense, and now this. Plus it’s not certain if Kendricks will play. Even Andrew Sendejo is questionable.

The Vikings signed Marcus Sherels. He’ll return punts. Hopefully he won’t have to play corner.

The only "positive" is we will see more of Hill who I think should have been playing more weeks ago. Mac is a big loss but I think Hill is better than Hughes right now. Dont be surprised if you see Kearse running a lot of big nickel which I really like the idea of. This might not be as bad as some thing.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This sucks.

We finally get everybody back on offense, and now this. Plus it’s not certain if Kendricks will play. Even Andrew Sendejo is questionable.

The Vikings signed Marcus Sherels. He’ll return punts. Hopefully he won’t have to play corner.

If Kendricks can't go, it would really hurt.

Report is he's going to play

[CharVike]

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.

Not an unfair stat, but a bit of context helps. The offense kept the defense on the field for a very long time (2 to 1 TOP in both games), particularly in those last two games listed there, which inflates those numbers a bit. SEA absolutely ran the Vikings over in that game, so you also can't just blame the TOP on the offense. Still, a bit more nuance is helpful.

TOP works both ways. How about the defense giving it back to the offense. The model has been laid out already. That great Bear defense under Buddy Ryan didn't let you run the ball. It was 3 and out over and over. That KC game was one that was handed to us. A backup QB so that impacts the passing game. Stuff the run and let the stiff try passing. I'm a firm believer that it all starts at the LOS. Win that battle and it gives you the best chance. Lose it and it gets harder to do anything. That's how the Pack dominated us twice. They won the LOS battle. That #55 dominated the LOS. Was it every play of course not. This Jordan guy for the Saints will be the hard one to control.

[fiestavike]

Not an unfair stat, but a bit of context helps. The offense kept the defense on the field for a very long time (2 to 1 TOP in both games), particularly in those last two games listed there, which inflates those numbers a bit. SEA absolutely ran the Vikings over in that game, so you also can't just blame the TOP on the offense. Still, a bit more nuance is helpful.

TOP works both ways. How about the defense giving it back to the offense. The model has been laid out already. That great Bear defense under Buddy Ryan didn't let you run the ball. It was 3 and out over and over. That KC game was one that was handed to us. A backup QB so that impacts the passing game. Stuff the run and let the stiff try passing. I'm a firm believer that it all starts at the LOS. Win that battle and it gives you the best chance. Lose it and it gets harder to do anything. That's how the Pack dominated us twice. They won the LOS battle. That #55 dominated the LOS. Was it every play of course not. This Jordan guy for the Saints will be the hard one to control.

That's fine. I'm not making an argument that the vikings defensive woes can all be pinned on the offense, just adding a bit of nuance. Outside of the Seattle game, the vikings run defense has at least been in the realm of reasonable on a play by play basis, which actually matters (is an indication and measure of something significant) far more than the total rushing yards stat in a box score. The Seattle game was the really bad one for the vikings run defense.

You can't play defense like you did in 1985 because its against the rules now, so that's not much of a fair measuring stick. For better or worse, the Vikings ask their defensive linemen to read and react rather than to force the issue, and part of that bargain is that they are a bit soft in the first yard or two, and rarely make plays on the other side of the line of scrimmage unless its 3rd and short. They seem to play for 3rd downs (where they are relatively quite good) rather than playing for 2nd and 12. Its a debatable philosophy, but you can only judge the defensive performance by how well they execute the philosophy.

[StumpHunter]

This sucks.

We finally get everybody back on offense, and now this. Plus it’s not certain if Kendricks will play. Even Andrew Sendejo is questionable.

The Vikings signed Marcus Sherels. He’ll return punts. Hopefully he won’t have to play corner.

The only "positive" is we will see more of Hill who I think should have been playing more weeks ago. Mac is a big loss but I think Hill is better than Hughes right now. Dont be surprised if you see Kearse running a lot of big nickel which I really like the idea of. This might not be as bad as some thing.

I agree. Mac is an excellent slot corner, and Hill replacing him could be a big dropoff. I am lot less concerned about Hughes being out, although the CB rotation they had going seemed to be working well.

I don't believe the Saints run a lot of formations that require dime defenses, so hopefully Boyd doesn't play a lot.

On a positive note, Eli Apple who had been playing okay as a starting outside corner looks to be out for the Saints, and Janoris Jenkins, who Theilen just absolutely torched when we played the Giants, might be matched up on Theilen again. Jenkins also hates to tackle, which should give us an edge in the short passing game.