Vikings Message Board.Com

mosscarter wrote:you have to love a performance like teddy put on today; regardless the outcome. this is our guy and all we need is better talent around him.

Do we have to love it?

mosscarter wrote:you have to love a performance like teddy put on today; regardless the outcome. this is our guy and all we need is better talent around him.

Not sure how much talent around him is going to help when his biggest problem is missing wide open receivers and easy throws. If he figures that out he'll be fine. Even with the talent we have right now considering the throws he misses we'd likely have another win or two at least IMO.

first time starting against green bay and we hung right with them. also, first multiple td game as well. can't anyone say anything mildly positive?

I would find it very interesting to see the actual Age of all of us. Those of us that seems perpetually negative ( as I often note myself slanting that way) are likely fans who have been watching and hoping since the 70's......my assumption is that the eternally optimistic fans posting here are more likely fans since the Moss/Carter years. I understand both tendencies. 40 yrs of dashed hopes is a tough thing to brain-wipe.

Mothman wrote: No way is this team more competitive than it was in 2012 and their record is the same as it was at this point in 2010. It's better than it was after 11 games last year but at this point last season, they were coming off a tie at GB. This year, they're coming off a close loss a to GB. Last year's team lost a bunch of close games. This year's team has lost some close ones too. Maybe they'll close strong and get to 8-8 or 9-7. That would be impressive and maybe it will happen but I think it's more likely they end up at 6-10, slightly better than last year's team.

I'm going to say something that might make you mad ... please understand, it's nothing personal.

Unless I'm mistaken, you usually watch the games after you already know the outcome. I would submit that changes the way you watch them.

Watching yesterday's game live, it felt like the Vikings could win the game, even though they never held the lead. And the reason it felt like they could pull it out was because the defense was playing great football. Does that mean they shut down the Green Bay Packers? Of course not. Nobody shuts them down completely. But I would say they played as well against the Packers as any team in the league has played this year, despite the loss.

In the past, when Aaron Rodgers let the ball go, the only way is was likely to be incomplete was if he and his receiver were on different pages, or the receiver dropped the ball. Rarely, and I mean RARELY, was the receiver covered and the pass contested. Yesterday, the vast majority of Rodgers' passes were contested very tightly, even the completions. There was a lot of whining to the refs going on by Green Bay receivers, which meant they were frustrated. You typically see that against Seattle or Kansas City ... not the Vikings. Rodgers also had to throw from out of the pocket A LOT yesterday, meaning the rush was also doing its job. He's just flat-out great at improvising, and he kept plays alive yesterday in those situations.

Basically, it's a matter of hope. Watching most of the past five years' games live, almost every game felt hopeless because our defense couldn't stop a Pop Warner team. This year, I'm surprised when our defense gets gashed. It happened virtually every drive in past years. Watching the game afterward, you don't have to sweat out the game. You already know what happened. I just think that makes you look at things differently.

As for 2012, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You like to talk total team, so let's do that. The main reason the 2012 team made the playoffs was Adrian Peterson. That man carried the team, literally and figuratively. This year we don't have Adrian Peterson, and I would submit the 2014 team is better than the 2012 team would have been without him. You may disagree, but if so, it's a matter of partial degrees. I think we can all degree ... the 2012 team had little to no chance of making the playoffs without AP.

Mothman wrote: I don't think the sky is falling. I see progress in some areas, regression in others. The latter is discouraging but I certainly didn't expect an overnight turnaround and as you pointed out, there have been setbacks. Losing Peterson was huge.

I'm still hopeful that they're heading in the right direction and that Zimmer is the right head coach. However, I don't feel very good about where the team is at right now because overall, I just don't think they're much better. Admittedly, part of that might be because I watched them give a pretty miserable performance in person a week ago. What makes me hopeful more than anything is that they're young and by this time next year, they could be a whole lot better.

Everything I talked about before was based on the eye test. So let me back up my argument that we're better with some basic numbers.

Run defense
At first glance, our rank of 22nd seems pretty bad. But is it really worse than last year, when we finished 16th?

Last year, teams threw the ball more than 40 times per game against the Vikings, which was the second-most pass attempts against any team in the NFL. Yet despite all those pass attempts, we still finished 16th against the rush. This year, opponents have attempted the 6th-fewest passes against us. It's my opinion, of course, but based on these numbers, the run defenses are about the same.

Pass defense
Here's the big difference. This year, we're 8th against the pass, as opposed to 31st last year (and, by the way, 24th against the pass in 2012). We're giving up 22 completions per game, compared to 26 per game last year. Opponents have attempted more than 8 fewer passes per game, with fewer yards per attempt, a lower TD percentage, and a higher interception percentage.

Overall
Again, marked improvement. We've gone from 32nd in the league in points allowed to 15th, giving up 8 fewer points per game. We're ranked 14th in overall yardage, compared to 31st last year. Turnovers are up, sacks are up ... the defense is better, both than 2013 AND the playoff team in 2012.

Here's the thing, Jim. You're always so good about preaching patience and pointing toward long-term success. Yet you're basing this year's performance on its current won-loss record. It's not what I'm used to seeing out of you. Watch yesterday's game. Look for positives. Pay particular attention to our pass defense, and how the DBs were sticking to Green Bay's extraordinary receivers. It's better defense, especially DB play, than I've seen in many years. I'm not only hopeful for the future, I believe this year's team will surprise us the rest of the way. Playoffs? Nope. Not this year. But they're improving. Gotta get the offense rolling, and that means mainly the O-line and better accuracy from Teddy. But we're competitive, and we'll get better.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:I'm going to say something that might make you mad ... please understand, it's nothing personal.

Unless I'm mistaken, you usually watch the games after you already know the outcome. I would submit that changes the way you watch them.

We've discussed this before. I listen to the games live when I can't watch them (and I do watch some of the games live) so it's not as if I have no feeling for the ebb and flow of the games as they're happening. Just as you got a sense that the Vikings could win that game yesterday while watching it, I had the same sense while listening to the radio broadcast and watching the portions of it shown on RedZone. It's a different way to experience the game as it's being played but i'm still following it as it's being played, play by play.

Watching yesterday's game live, it felt like the Vikings could win the game, even though they never held the lead. And the reason it felt like they could pull it out was because the defense was playing great football. Does that mean they shut down the Green Bay Packers? Of course not. Nobody shuts them down completely. But I would say they played as well against the Packers as any team in the league has played this year, despite the loss.

I wouldn't but that's a subjective assessment and we can reasonably disagree on that. Personally, I'd say the Lions defense holding GB to 7 points and 223 yards is much more indicative of a great performance against GB's high-powered offense and I consider their 19-7 win over the Packers a considerably better overall performance than the Vikes had yesterday. Please understand, I'm not trying to denigrate the Vikings defense. They played hard and they're an improved unit but I don't think they're a great defense and I don't think that was a great defensive performance from them yesterday.

Basically, it's a matter of hope. Watching most of the past five years' games live, almost every game felt hopeless because our defense couldn't stop a Pop Warner team. This year, I'm surprised when our defense gets gashed. It happened virtually every drive in past years. Watching the game afterward, you don't have to sweat out the game. You already know what happened. I just think that makes you look at things differently.

As I said, I listen live. I sweat out the game live, just like you do. I think I look at it differently simply because I look at it differently. We clearly have different views of what constitutes a great defensive performance and we have different memories of recent seasons too. I understand what you're saying about hope and after some of the defensive debacles we saw last year, it's refreshing to see an improved defense but it's an exaggeration to say the Vikings defense was gashed on virtually every drive in past years (and I know you meant recent years). It's simply not true. Do you realize that this current team is allowing a slightly higher points per game average (22.1) than the Vikes did 2 years ago (21.? They're allowing just 7.5 fewer yards per game on average than they did in 2012. Their 3rd down percentage is identical. Statistically, the two are very close and the 2010 defense was similar statistically too, although they were bit better than the other two in average yards allowed per game.

My point is that there's a difference between the perception that this defense is much better or more competitive than any Vikings defense we've seen over the past 4 years and reality. It's certainly better than the 2011 or 2013 defenses but very similar in overall performance to a couple of Vikings defenses we've seen recently. Philosophically, it's very different, and I think that's one of the reasons so many people are excited about it and it's future potential.

As for 2012, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You like to talk total team, so let's do that. The main reason the 2012 team made the playoffs was Adrian Peterson. That man carried the team, literally and figuratively. This year we don't have Adrian Peterson, and I would submit the 2014 team is better than the 2012 team would have been without him. You may disagree, but if so, it's a matter of partial degrees. I think we can all degree ... the 2012 team had little to no chance of making the playoffs without AP.

Probably not but what difference does that make in an assessment of which team was more competitive? I have no idea if this current Vikings team is better without Peterson than the 2012 team would have been. I only brought up the 2012 team because I think they provide a pretty strong counterpoint to your assertion that that this 2014 Vikings team is more competitive than the Vikes have been in five years.

Everything I talked about before was based on the eye test. So let me back up my argument that we're better with some basic numbers.

I appreciate the numbers but they weren't necessary. The defense is obviously better than they were last year but I feel like you're unintentionally moving the goal posts on me here. If we're just comparing the 2014 Vikings to the 2013 team, the defensive improvement is crystal clear. If we're comparing it to teams over the previous 4 years, it's not clear in each case.

Here's the thing, Jim. You're always so good about preaching patience and pointing toward long-term success. Yet you're basing this year's performance on its current won-loss record. It's not what I'm used to seeing out of you.

I'm basing my assessment on the team's performance, which obviously led to their W/L record. As I said earlier, I see progress in some areas, regression in others. You appear focused on the defense. I see improvement there but I also see problems that still need fixing. On offense, I see regression and serious problems that need to be addressed. Overall, it feels like they're in a pretty similar place to where they were a year ago but with some different issues.

Watch yesterday's game. Look for positives. Pay particular attention to our pass defense, and how the DBs were sticking to Green Bay's extraordinary receivers. It's better defense, especially DB play, than I've seen in many years.

I see the improved coverage but it's not blinding me to the shortcomings in run defense. Green Bay had their way with the Vikes run defense on the ground this year and that aspect of the defense has plagued the Vikings on and off all season. It seems fair to criticize them for that. If I'm not mistaken, Lacy had over 55 yards on the ground in the 4th quarter alone yesterday. Green Bay had the ball for 9 minutes and 41 seconds in that quarter. They had an 87 yard TD drive early in the quarter and then held it for the final 3:23 of the game. When an opponent has the lead and can do that in the 4th quarter, I contend it is not indicative of a great defensive performance. It's a problem.

I'm not only hopeful for the future, I believe this year's team will surprise us the rest of the way. Playoffs? Nope. Not this year. But they're improving. Gotta get the offense rolling, and that means mainly the O-line and better accuracy from Teddy. But we're competitive, and we'll get better.

I hope so but "competitive" isn't doing it for me this year any more than it did in 3 of the last 4. They were competitive more often than not last year and it got them 5.5 wins. I understand that improvement is a process and I didn't expect them to be a winning team or a playoff team this year so I'm not trying to blast the coaching staff, or the players. I'm simply saying that overall, 11 games into the season, they're still a pretty mediocre football team. If they actually get the offense rolling and continue holding teams to around 22 points on defense, they might be able to finish strong. That would be encouraging.

I'm not saying this would have cured our lack of run defense yesterday but we have to remember, Shariff Floyd did not play. And compared to how he has been playing lately, he would have been a huge help out there. Either way, I still think we need a sure tackling athletic MLB as well. Brinkley is just.....there. He's not terrible, but he also doesn't do a whole lot for us. I've narrowed my choices down to KJ Wright in FA, Denzel Perryman (The U) or Benardrick McKinney (Miss St.). We need a playmaker in the middle

Pondering Her Percy wrote:I'm not saying this would have cured our lack of run defense yesterday but we have to remember, Shariff Floyd did not play. And compared to how he has been playing lately, he would have been a huge help out there.

It certainly would have been nice if he could have played. I don't know if he would have made much difference against the run or not since that issue wasn't unique to yesterday's game.

Either way, I still think we need a sure tackling athletic MLB as well. Brinkley is just.....there. He's not terrible, but he also doesn't do a whole lot for us. I've narrowed my choices down to KJ Wright in FA, Denzel Perryman (The U) or Benardrick McKinney (Miss St.). We need a playmaker in the middle

Agreed. I think being strong in the middle at every level is important to good defense. The Vikes still have some work to do in that department.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: As for 2012, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You like to talk total team, so let's do that. The main reason the 2012 team made the playoffs was Adrian Peterson. That man carried the team, literally and figuratively. This year we don't have Adrian Peterson, and I would submit the 2014 team is better than the 2012 team would have been without him. You may disagree, but if so, it's a matter of partial degrees. I think we can all degree ... the 2012 team had little to no chance of making the playoffs without AP.

That may be true (that this year's team is better than the 2012 team without AP), but your original statement was that this year's team is more competitive than any of the previous 5 years teams. You can't justify that by saying the 2012 team only made the playoffs is because they had AP so they wouldn't have been as competitive. The fact is they did have AP and he was part of the team, you can't remove him from the equation. That's like saying Denver isn't a good team because the only reason they are good is because they have Peyton Manning. There is no way you can say this year's team is more competitive than the 2012 team.

Man, I hope the Vikings improve over the offseason so they can CRUSH this guy next year:

http://packers.247sports.com/Bolt/Was-A ... --33224366

TSonn wrote:Man, I hope the Vikings improve over the offseason so they can CRUSH this guy next year:

http://packers.247sports.com/Bolt/Was-A ... --33224366

Anything to hype up a rivalry.

TSonn wrote:Man, I hope the Vikings improve over the offseason so they can CRUSH this guy next year:

http://packers.247sports.com/Bolt/Was-A ... --33224366

Mothman wrote:
Holy cow! Did you see that TD catch he made a few minutes ago? That was amazing!

Sorry Mothman, I was checking my fantasy teams and didn't come back to the thread. Yes, I was watching and about jumped out of the chair. The Giants have seemed to hit a HR with this kid. Reminds me of Boldin.

Mothman wrote:We clearly have different views of what constitutes a great defensive performance and we have different memories of recent seasons too.

Well, that's patently obvious if you truly believe any Viking defense over the past five seasons was actually better than this year's. Statistically, it's at least AS GOOD as any in the past five years. Your own statistics prove that.

And it's impossible to overlook the fact that this division has as much wide receiver talent as any in football. It's going to be tough to dominate the likes of Marshall, Jefferey, Megatron, Tate, Nelson, and Cobb. So if domination is your definition of a great defensive performance, stand by to be disappointed often, no matter who is coach.

Mothman wrote:My point is that there's a difference between the perception that this defense is much better or more competitive than any Vikings defense we've seen over the past 4 years and reality. It's certainly better than the 2011 or 2013 defenses but very similar in overall performance to a couple of Vikings defenses we've seen recently. Philosophically, it's very different, and I think that's one of the reasons so many people are excited about it and it's future potential.

But apparently you're not.

Look, I disagree with you completely. The perception is reality. Experts are saying it. Analysts are saying it. Maybe the statistics don't back it as much as they did a few weeks ago, but the eye test tells me differently, and the stats say they're at least AS GOOD as any Vikings defense in the past 5 years. They're younger, they're more talented, the scheme is better, and their technique is better ... and getting better every week. Even against the Bears, Vikings DBs were in position and had tight coverage. The Bears simply have two of the biggest, most talented receivers in the game who made plays.

Bottom line, I'm not saying they're great yet. Never said that. I said they played an excellent game against Green Bay, and you're not going to change my mind. I know what I saw. I'm also saying they're trending in the right direction. The Vikings need two things ... more talent in key positions (especially on offense) and the proverbial "learn how to win" mentality. They don't have that yet.

Mothman wrote: Probably not but what difference does that make in an assessment of which team was more competitive? I have no idea if this current Vikings team is better without Peterson than the 2012 team would have been. I only brought up the 2012 team because I think they provide a pretty strong counterpoint to your assertion that that this 2014 Vikings team is more competitive than the Vikes have been in five years.

It makes all the difference in the world!!!!

Adrian Peterson carried that team, period. In 2012, we had four wins where we averaged 82 yards passing per game, with a HIGH of 109. During those same games, Adrian Peterson averaged 155 yards rushing. I think it's safe to say that without AP, we probably lose all those games, which proves that 2012's success was an outlier, not a counterpoint.

Mothman wrote:I hope so but "competitive" isn't doing it for me this year any more than it did in 3 of the last 4. They were competitive more often than not last year and it got them 5.5 wins.

Ah, so results are what matters.

Does that mean that Brad Childress, with two division titles, is the most successful coach since Denny Green?

Of course not. Why? Because all the (very valid) arguments you made while Brad Childress was coach -- that his success isn't sustainable, that he didn't build for the future, etc. -- still apply now. So isn't it only fair to measure Mike Zimmer's success in the same way, especially in his first season after inheriting a historically bad defensive team?

Here's my main point in all this ...

Mike Zimmer was handed the reigns to a very bad football team. It's going to take time to turn it around. In the meantime, I feel we should look for signs of better play, not just assess the record. Yeah, the defense caved in the last three minutes yesterday. That was disappointing. But did the defense really play poorly? I just don't see how anybody can make that argument, especially against THAT team. More importantly, I believe the defense is on the right trajectory for future success. Now, we also have to look at the offense and understand that it can't continue on its current trajectory if the Zimmer regime is going to succeed.

Now in fairness, Leslie Frazier was handed a pretty awful team, as well. Three years later, they were almost as bad. So in fairness, if we're 11 games into the season a couple of years from now, and the Vikings are still sitting at 4-7, I'll be the first to say that Mike Zimmer has failed. Just as Leslie Frazier failed.

Purple Reign wrote: That may be true (that this year's team is better than the 2012 team without AP), but your original statement was that this year's team is more competitive than any of the previous 5 years teams. You can't justify that by saying the 2012 team only made the playoffs is because they had AP so they wouldn't have been as competitive. The fact is they did have AP and he was part of the team, you can't remove him from the equation. That's like saying Denver isn't a good team because the only reason they are good is because they have Peyton Manning. There is no way you can say this year's team is more competitive than the 2012 team.

Why not? Speculating as to a single player's value to a team, typically measured by what the team would have been without him, is the very definition of what makes an MVP.

Adrian Peterson was the only reason the Vikings were even remotely competitive in 2012. As I pointed out in another post, in four of the Vikings wins that year, AP averaged 155 yards per game rushing, while Christian Ponder bumbled his way to an average of 82 yards passing. The 2012 Vikings had no passing offense and gave up nearly 4,000 yards passing on defense. They were no better than a 4-win team without him, which is EXACTLY why he won the MVP.

And I'll add this ... if Adrian Peterson hadn't gotten in trouble, we'd likely have a couple more wins this year, maybe more. We had an entire thread on this board about it, and nobody seemed to mind speculating the other way. In my opinion, every phase of the Vikings except for the running game and Blair Walsh is better this year than in 2012. It just so happens that Adrian Peterson's heroics were enough to push the Vikings into the playoffs in '12.