Vikings Message Board.Com

VikingLord wrote:I'm surprised people are still putting them at even 5 wins. Defense is improved, but far from top-notch. I'd say they're probably about a 10-20 ranked D this year when all is said-and-done. Better than what we've seen in recent memory, but not nearly good enough to win games by itself. Offense without AD is pathetic. Cassel doesn't scare anyone (save perhaps, Vikings fans and his coaches). Bridgewater might make it interesting, but he's unlikely to radically change the offensive dynamic in his rookie season if he finds his way onto the field. Ponder's greatest contribution this year would be if Spielman could find a way to trade him somewhere for a 6th rounder.

This is a team that will be lucky to win 3 games and could win as few as the 1 they got against the Rams. That might be hard to stomach, but the entire offense was constructed around AD, and without him back there they are going to struggle mightily to move the ball. The strategy was nip-and-tuck *with* AD's assumed contributions on offense. Without that, forget it. I'm afraid it's going to be a loooonnnggg season of slogging on offense.

On the bright side, hopefully this finally ends the "Chilly Ball" era for good and over-investing at RB.

Teams' identities are pretty hard to define at such an early date. Are the "real" Vikes closer to the Rams blowout performance or the Patriots debacle? I think we'll have more than 3 wins this year but its hard to put a number on wins at the beginning of the year, especially when so much turmoil is going on in the organization. Not to mention losing the team's best player for the year. The Vikes won big against Philly last year without Adrian. Now I'm not suggesting that we should expect that kind of output on a weekly basis (especially after last week), but I do think the defense is improved and the offense has enough weapons to put up some points even with Cassel doing his Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde impression. I thought there was a chance of being a fringe playoff team at the beginning of the season if the Vikes caught enough breaks but with all that's happened that doesn't seem like a realistic possibility at this point.

I think I would mainly like to see improvement from the younger players (Rhodes, Floyd, Patterson, Kalil) and see moves in the right direction for the future. 5 wins seems like it is achievable but its really hard to tell so early in the season with the influence of injuries, teams not living up to what they were in recent years or some not so great teams improving. With Simpson not coming back I guess we'll find out what we have in Wright and whether Thielen and Smith can progress on some of the potential they showed in the preaseason. To say things are up in the air would be a bit of an understatement.

It has been gloomy over the past week but there are some areas of intrigue that should be interesting to watch over the course of the year. And if Bridgewater gets any playing time, that will definitely be a reason to tune in!

VikingLord wrote:I'm surprised people are still putting them at even 5 wins. Defense is improved, but far from top-notch. I'd say they're probably about a 10-20 ranked D this year when all is said-and-done. Better than what we've seen in recent memory, but not nearly good enough to win games by itself. Offense without AD is pathetic. Cassel doesn't scare anyone (save perhaps, Vikings fans and his coaches). Bridgewater might make it interesting, but he's unlikely to radically change the offensive dynamic in his rookie season if he finds his way onto the field. Ponder's greatest contribution this year would be if Spielman could find a way to trade him somewhere for a 6th rounder.

This is a team that will be lucky to win 3 games and could win as few as the 1 they got against the Rams. That might be hard to stomach, but the entire offense was constructed around AD, and without him back there they are going to struggle mightily to move the ball. The strategy was nip-and-tuck *with* AD's assumed contributions on offense. Without that, forget it. I'm afraid it's going to be a loooonnnggg season of slogging on offense.

On the bright side, hopefully this finally ends the "Chilly Ball" era for good and over-investing at RB.

You are wrong - Guaranteed.. Mark my words.

I will consume Gallons of blended crow if we win under 4 games...

MikethePurple wrote: Teams' identities are pretty hard to define at such an early date. Are the "real" Vikes closer to the Rams blowout performance or the Patriots debacle? I think we'll have more than 3 wins this year but its hard to put a number on wins at the beginning of the year, especially when so much turmoil is going on in the organization. Not to mention losing the team's best player for the year. The Vikes won big against Philly last year without Adrian.

Peterson has never been a key factor in this team's W-L record and the numbers bear that out ... there is not a significant difference in our win percentage when he's not in there. In fact the one season since we drafted him where we could have won it all, we lost the conference championship thanks in large part to his fumbles. The conventional wisdom is that the organization is in turmoil and the loss of AP is devastating to the team. I see it completely differently ... this is the chance for Zimm and his staff to mold the Vikings without being shackled by an aging Hall-of-Fame running back.

The Rams blowout was not a blowout, and the Patriots debacle was not a debacle. Both games were actually much much closer than the scores indicate, with each score skewed by stupid mistakes. NFL games are still won and lost in the trenches, and the Vikings are in the upper half of the league in combined trench play.

When the OLine and Cassel play well, the Vikes can beat anyone in the league ... and we will have our share of wins, punctuated by the maddening losses when Dr. Hyde shows up at QB instead as he did last Sunday.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

Mr. Leafman, I believe we sit and watch our Vikings from the same style of chair. Game 1 did not make or determine the season, nor did game 2! AP out, that hurt, mostly due to the dark cloud it put around the team, but this team can gear up. Go Vikes, let's see a 4-1 or 3-2 beginning of the year. We want to get behind you! Wahi'

...wisdom ?, I don't know, none of us does...yet!

indianation65 wrote:Go Vikes, let's see a 4-1 or 3-2 beginning of the year.

Well that would be very very nice ... facing Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Ryan and Stafford in our first 6 games. If they go 3-3 to start this season, I will be VERY optimistic about this team's upside.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

I haven't really changed my prediction. I still think we will be in the ball park of 7-9, 8-8, 9-7. Without Peterson, I see us closer to 7-9 than 9-7.


I still think we will roll with Cassel for awhile. I still think we will see Teddy Bridgewater start this season.

Teams can change so quickly and so many times throughout the season that I don't even feel like playing this game.

I will say though, that if they can get out of these first 4 games at 2-2 then I would consider that a success with all things considered.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote:I still think we will roll with Cassel for awhile. I still think we will see Teddy Bridgewater start this season.

If we see Bridgewater this season, the win total will be much closer to 7 than 9.

Leafman wrote:Peterson has never been a key factor in this team's W-L record and the numbers bear that out ... there is not a significant difference in our win percentage when he's not in there. In fact the one season since we drafted him where we could have won it all, we lost the conference championship thanks in large part to his fumbles.

This comes up over and over again so I apologize to those who have read the following info before:

Only one of Peterson's fumbles in that game ended up hurting the Vikings in any significant way and that was the one that wasn't even credited to him (the handoff in the red zone that he lost and the Saints recovered. The fumble was credited to Favre but peterson was responsible). His other fumbles weren't turnovers. If I recall correctly, he recovered one of them for a gain and Tahi recovered the other one for a loss on a drive where Peterson ultimately scored. The fumbles were aggravating and the bad exchange almost certainly took potential points off the board but overall, so I understand why people remember them being so damaging but other than that fumbled handoff, they simply weren't a factor. Consequently, I don't think it can be accurately said that the Vikings lost the conference championship thanks in large part to his fumbles, especially when they committed what, 4 or other turnovers in the game? 5? It was a deluge of mistakes.

I also have to say that even though there's not a significant difference in win percentage when Peterson hasn't played, it should be noted that since he was drafted in 2007 he's played in 104 of a possible 114 games. in other words, we're comparing the team's win percentage in 10 games to their win percentage in 104. That may not be a great barometer of his overall impact.

I can think of many games over the years where Peterson's performance played a significant role in the final outcome and that alone suggests to me that he has indeed had an impact on the team's W/L record. He's not irreplaceable but he's a difference-maker. Personally, I doubt Zimmer felt "shackled" to him. I suspect he wishes he still had him (sans the criminal charges, of course).

VikingLord wrote: If we see Bridgewater this season, the win total will be much closer to 7 than 9.

Probably, although maybe that depends on when we see him and under what circumstances. Then again, maybe not.

I have no doubt that we will see him play, or at least that Cassel isn't going to start all 16 games. If the coaches are determined to let Bridgewater sit for an entire season, maybe Ponder would get the nod instead but since he's been listed as the #3 QB and deactivated for at least one game (was he active or inactive last week?), I'm assuming they're comfortable with Teddy as the actual #2 QB.

Mothman wrote: Only one of Peterson's fumbles in that game ended up hurting the Vikings in any significant way and that was the one that wasn't even credited to him (the handoff in the red zone that he lost and the Saints recovered. The fumble was credited to Favre but peterson was responsible).

Should have used the singular, because that fumble WAS key. There are always multiple things that contribute to the loss, and that fumble was one of the significant ones. Without the others ... the terrible INT, the 12 men in the huddle, the blown 4th and 1 call, the phantom penalty on Leber ... the Vikings likely win and that fumble is not as big deal. Of course, without that fumble, none of the other factors I mentioned would have come in to play, because the game would likely not have been tied late in the 4th.

It was a big fumble.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

Mothman wrote: This comes up over and over again so I apologize to those who have read the following info before:

Only one of Peterson's fumbles in that game ended up hurting the Vikings in any significant way and that was the one that wasn't even credited to him (the handoff in the red zone that he lost and the Saints recovered. The fumble was credited to Favre but peterson was responsible). His other fumbles weren't turnovers. If I recall correctly, he recovered one of them for a gain and Tahi recovered the other one for a loss on a drive where Peterson ultimately scored. The fumbles were aggravating and the bad exchange almost certainly took potential points off the board but overall, so I understand why people remember them being so damaging but other than that fumbled handoff, they simply weren't a factor. Consequently, I don't think it can be accurately said that the Vikings lost the conference championship thanks in large part to his fumbles, especially when they committed what, 4 or other turnovers in the game? 5? It was a deluge of mistakes.

I also have to say that even though there's not a significant difference in win percentage when Peterson hasn't played, it should be noted that since he was drafted in 2007 he's played in 104 of a possible 114 games. in other words, we're comparing the team's win percentage in 10 games to their win percentage in 104. That may not be a great barometer of his overall impact.

I can think of many games over the years where Peterson's performance played a significant role in the final outcome and that alone suggests to me that he has indeed had an impact on the team's W/L record. He's not irreplaceable but he's a difference-maker. Personally, I doubt Zimmer felt "shackled" to him. I suspect he wishes he still had him (sans the criminal charges, of course).

Exactly. I ofc, put most on the blame on Favre. You can never trust a packer, ex or not.

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Exactly. I ofc, put most on the blame on Favre. You can never trust a packer, ex or not.

Leafman wrote: Peterson has never been a key factor in this team's W-L record and the numbers bear that out ... there is not a significant difference in our win percentage when he's not in there. In fact the one season since we drafted him where we could have won it all, we lost the conference championship thanks in large part to his fumbles. The conventional wisdom is that the organization is in turmoil and the loss of AP is devastating to the team. I see it completely differently ... this is the chance for Zimm and his staff to mold the Vikings without being shackled by an aging Hall-of-Fame running back.

The Rams blowout was not a blowout, and the Patriots debacle was not a debacle. Both games were actually much much closer than the scores indicate, with each score skewed by stupid mistakes. NFL games are still won and lost in the trenches, and the Vikings are in the upper half of the league in combined trench play.

When the OLine and Cassel play well, the Vikes can beat anyone in the league ... and we will have our share of wins, punctuated by the maddening losses when Dr. Hyde shows up at QB instead as he did last Sunday.

LEAFMAN THE PURPLE FAN

Mothman already stated the Peterson case quite well as far as sample size but just another small thing to consider, do you really think that this team would have won as many games as it did in 2011 without Peterson's epic season? While I'm not suggesting he was going to put together one of those performances again but to say he isn't a difference maker I think is just not accurate. He's one of the best to play the position recently, was voted the league MVP a couple years ago and is a big play threat whenever he has the ball. I'm not saying the season is down the tubes without Peterson, rather that this team was going to have to improve a lot to contend for the playoffs already and doing that without AD will be much more difficult.

I agree with you that turnovers or big plays many times can decide a game and can skew how the score looks but I'm surprised that you would call the Rams game close. In the first half I would agree with you but the Vikes dominated the second half of that game not only in points but on defense. They were controlling the game in that half and were not reliant on mistakes to put the game out of reach for the Rams. They played a well rounded game. As far as the Patriots game is concerned outside of the first series the offense was quite terrible, they only gained 219 yards all game with a significant portion on that first drive. Not only did Cassel play poorly, the offensive line didn't help him out any and the run game was not effective. While it was close for a while and the blocked field goal made a huge 10 point swing, the team didn't play very well all around.

But here's hoping to a turnaround tomorrow against the Saints

with AD 11-5
no AD - 3-13

it will be a LOOOOOOONG year if we have to depend on Cassel to beat defenses without a legit rushing threat


PS, matt asiata and jerrick mckinnon are not legit rushing threats