Packers @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread Week 12

[DK Sweets]

I think the biggest point about this 2012 vs 2014 argument is being missed: if Adrian hadn't been suspended for the entire season, it wouldn't even be close.

Adrian didn't just help the offense, he helped the defense by sustaining long drives. This defense would likely be even better with that kind of help. I have to believe our passing game would fare better, too.

The 2012 team might beat the 2014 team, but it wouldn't be because the TEAM was better, it would be because in 2012 we still possessed a once in a lifetime talent.

[mosscarter]

the fact that ponder played that badly and peterson had one of the most historic seasons running ruins your argument completely. are you saying that bridgewater's numbers would be the same, or offensively that this team's numbers would be the same or relative to 2012? put bridgewater on that 2012 (even as a rookie) and he would have put up better numbers. ponder was quite possibly the worst starting qb in the nfl for 2 straight years. we start him one game this year and it was a total massacre. if teddy just had peterson on the field it would change the whole offensive game plan. if teddy does one thing well; he has a nice drop back and stands in there and throws it. now imagine how much he could improve with the best back in the league that would drastically effect our play action abilities (of which really don't exist right now).

[Purple Reign]

I think the biggest point about this 2012 vs 2014 argument is being missed: if Adrian hadn't been suspended for the entire season, it wouldn't even be close.

Adrian didn't just help the offense, he helped the defense by sustaining long drives. This defense would likely be even better with that kind of help. I have to believe our passing game would fare better, too.

The 2012 team might beat the 2014 team, but it wouldn't be because the TEAM was better, it would be because in 2012 we still possessed a once in a lifetime talent.

I don't think there is anyone that would disagree with that, but there again that is just speculation. We are comparing the 2012 team that had AP with the 2014 team without AP, those are just the facts that we have to deal with. It doesn't do any good to speculate any 'what if' scenarios if you are trying to compare them. Oh, and last time I looked, AP wasn't playing the game by himself, he was part of the TEAM. Yes, his presence made the whole team better, and one player can make a huge difference in the team, but it still takes 11 guys every down to play the game. You have to consider all players which includes AP as the 'TEAM'.

[DK Sweets]

I don't think there is anyone that would disagree with that, but there again that is just speculation. We are comparing the 2012 team that had AP with the 2014 team without AP, those are just the facts that we have to deal with. It doesn't do any good to speculate any 'what if' scenarios if you are trying to compare them. Oh, and last time I looked, AP wasn't playing the game by himself, he was part of the TEAM. Yes, his presence made the whole team better, and one player can make a huge difference in the team, but it still takes 11 guys every down to play the game. You have to consider all players which includes AP as the 'TEAM'.

Speculating is all we can do. That's the entire point of this conversation.

The premise of my comment is that if you look at the roster, 2014's players ranked 2-53 would easily be favored against 2012's 2-54. That said, Adrian was on this team this year, just not for long. In this hypothetical scenario, how do you choose which week's healthy players would be on the field?

[Purple Reign]

Speculating is all we can do. That's the entire point of this conversation.

The premise of my comment is that if you look at the roster, 2014's players ranked 2-53 would easily be favored against 2012's 2-54. That said, Adrian was on this team this year, just not for long. In this hypothetical scenario, how do you choose which week's healthy players would be on the field?

Yes, we are speculating what team would be considered better, but you can't speculate about the 2012 team without AP because that team did have AP for the whole year. Having AP for only 1 game this year is a very minute part of this year's team when you are looking at the overall picture. And since there are still a few more games to be played this year it is difficult to compare apples to apples. But in the NFL the most important thing that counts is wins. The 2012 team had a 10-6 record and made the playoffs (and whether it was primarily because of AP or not is beside the point) while the current team is at 4-7 (with all wins against losing teams) and will probably end up 6-10 with virtually no chance to make the playoffs. I just don't see how anyone can say that this year's team is more competitive than the 2012 team based on that.

[DK Sweets]

Yes, we are speculating what team would be considered better, but you can't speculate about the 2012 team without AP because that team did have AP for the whole year. Having AP for only 1 game this year is a very minute part of this year's team when you are looking at the overall picture. And since there are still a few more games to be played this year it is difficult to compare apples to apples. But in the NFL the most important thing that counts is wins. The 2012 team had a 10-6 record and made the playoffs (and whether it was primarily because of AP or not is beside the point) while the current team is at 4-7 (with all wins against losing teams) and will probably end up 6-10 with virtually no chance to make the playoffs. I just don't see how anyone can say that this year's team is more competitive than the 2012 team based on that.

I'm not saying that the end results will say that this team is better, I'm saying that this team is better set up to sustain success. I speculate on what would have happened to that team without Adrian because that is what happened to this squad. In my eyes, that's fair speculation.

I'm not sure that there is a unit on the 2012 team that rates better than this years version...except RB. The difference is Adrian was in for that season and he missed this year.

I feel like we're arguing different things. I'm looking at which team was set up better heading into the season, and you're looking at the end results.

Basically, if these teams played in September, 2014 would win. If they played in December, 2012 would win.

[Purple Reign]

I'm not saying that the end results will say that this team is better, I'm saying that this team is better set up to sustain success. I speculate on what would have happened to that team without Adrian because that is what happened to this squad. In my eyes, that's fair speculation.

I'm not sure that there is a unit on the 2012 team that rates better than this years version...except RB. The difference is Adrian was in for that season and he missed this year.

I feel like we're arguing different things. I'm looking at which team was set up better heading into the season, and you're looking at the end results.

Basically, if these teams played in September, 2014 would win. If they played in December, 2012 would win.

Yes, I think we are talking 2 different things here. When you jumped into the conversation, we were discussing whether or not the 2014 team is more competitive than the 2012 team. We weren't speculating about how the 2012 would have done without AP or which team is better set up for success. Someone said that the only reason the 2012 team was competitive was because of AP so if he weren't on the team they wouldn't have been very competitive, which I don't disagree with. What I disagree with is that you can't speculate how competitive they would have been without him when comparing the 2 teams because they did have him and he was part of the team. When you try to compare 2 different teams, you can't pick and choose which players you want to include in the analysis - that's all.

[DK Sweets]

Yes, I think we are talking 2 different things here. When you jumped into the conversation, we were discussing whether or not the 2014 team is more competitive than the 2012 team. We weren't speculating about how the 2012 would have done without AP or which team is better set up for success. Someone said that the only reason the 2012 team was competitive was because of AP so if he weren't on the team they wouldn't have been very competitive, which I don't disagree with. What I disagree with is that you can't speculate how competitive they would have been without him when comparing the 2 teams because they did have him and he was part of the team. When you try to compare 2 different teams, you can't pick and choose which players you want to include in the analysis - that's all.

I think that's the problem - Kapp actually was making the argument about how the 2012 team would have fared without AP. It's the same argument I'm making and I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say, which admittedly, is probably my fault for not being clear enough.

You're getting very caught up on the fact that Adrian was on the team so he HAS to be included, when we're simply stating that this overall team is better excluding Adrian Peterson. There is more reason for hope following this year than there was following 2012.

We understand Adrian Peterson was a part of the 2012 team. We know he was a huge reason for their success. That's actually why this conversation was started - this team would look a hell of a lot better if Adrian had never been suspended, but there is still reason for measured optimism.

[Purple Reign]

You're getting very caught up on the fact that Adrian was on the team so he HAS to be included, when we're simply stating that this overall team is better excluding Adrian Peterson. There is more reason for hope following this year than there was following 2012.

We understand Adrian Peterson was a part of the 2012 team. We know he was a huge reason for their success. That's actually why this conversation was started - this team would look a hell of a lot better if Adrian had never been suspended, but there is still reason for measured optimism.

So let's see if I understand you correctly. A simple yes/no response. Are you saying that the current team (today - not next year's) without AP is a better team than the 2012 team was with AP? I'm not talking about hope for the future or anything like that - just comparing the team we had in 2012 with today's team as far as competitiveness goes. If you say yes, then I respect your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with it and I think a vast majority on here would also disagree.

Not sure how you can claim that I'm 'getting caught up in the fact that AP was on the 2012 team', because it is a fact and you can't exclude him from the 2012 team when you are comparing the 2 teams. I think you are getting caught up on hope/potential in the future of this year's team. Hope/potential should not be included when comparing the teams, only results. From a results perspective the 2012 team was better IMO.

[Mothman]

I think that's the problem - Kapp actually was making the argument about how the 2012 team would have fared without AP. It's the same argument I'm making and I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say, which admittedly, is probably my fault for not being clear enough.

The problem is that the two of you have been debating different points altogether.

The 2014/2012 comparison began a few pages back when Kapp posted:

Bottom line: This team is more competitive than it's been in five years. Period.

... and I responded...

No way is this team more competitive than it was in 2012...

Those are edits but the posts are still visible a few pages back. Anyway, from there, it somehow progressed into a comparison of the two teams and a disconnect emerged. I was arguing, and as far as I can tell, Purple Reign has been arguing all along, that Kapp's initial statement isn't true and the 2012 team was more competitive than the 2014 has been. In other words, the Vikings are not more competitive than they've been in five years. It's that simple and that's why Purple reign is saying Peterson can't be removed from the equation. The comparison was about which team was more competitive, not which team would fare better in a hyopthetical head-to-head confrontation. That whole aspect of the discussion came later. The argument about which team is better excluding Adrian Peterson is a completely different argument.

Does that help clear things up? Did I just make it worse?

[frosted]

I was just about to say, this has been almost comical, it seems like Purple Reign isn't reading DK's posts - DK is saying something entirely different than what Kapp was saying.

It's like watching a fish out of water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DK Sweets]

So let's see if I understand you correctly. A simple yes/no response. Are you saying that the current team (today - not next year's) without AP is a better team than the 2012 team was with AP? I'm not talking about hope for the future or anything like that - just comparing the team we had in 2012 with today's team as far as competitiveness goes. If you say yes, then I respect your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with it and I think a vast majority on here would also disagree.

The truest answer I can give is that I think it would be a very close game, but held at gunpoint I would choose the 2012 squad to win by a margin no greater than 7 points. That doesn't mean you're understanding what I'm saying.

Not sure how you can claim that I'm 'getting caught up in the fact that AP was on the 2012 team', because it is a fact and you can't exclude him from the 2012 team when you are comparing the 2 teams. I think you are getting caught up on hope/potential in the future of this year's team. Hope/potential should not be included when comparing the teams, only results. From a results perspective the 2012 team was better IMO.

I say you're getting caught up on that fact because you're still trying to argue on your terms instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.

I saw this post:

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.

I read few responses to that post, and then I posted this:

I think the biggest point about this 2012 vs 2014 argument is being missed: if Adrian hadn't been suspended for the entire season, it wouldn't even be close.

Adrian didn't just help the offense, he helped the defense by sustaining long drives. This defense would likely be even better with that kind of help. I have to believe our passing game would fare better, too.

The 2012 team might beat the 2014 team, but it wouldn't be because the TEAM was better, it would be because in 2012 we still possessed a once in a lifetime talent.

I have admitted that the 2012 team including Peterson would be slightly favored, but the overall composition of the team is better this year in my opinion. Basically, when I say TEAM, I mean the full roster. So when I say the TEAM is better this year, what I am saying is that if Adrian hadn't been lost this season, I don't think the comparison would be close.

I understand Peterson was on the 2012 team and was a big part of why that team performed better. I understand he has not been a big part of the team this year. That is at the heart of the point I am trying to make. Peterson was on the roster this year, and we lost him very early. Therefore, in my mind, it is fair to speculate which entire roster is better if both teams had Adrian for the entire season or if both teams had lost Adrian for the entire season. In either of those scenarios, I think this squad is better.

[Mothman]

I understand Peterson was on the 2012 team and was a big part of why that team performed better. That is the point. My point is that Peterson was on the roster this year, and we lost him very early. Therefore, in my mind, it is fair to speculate which entire roster is better if both teams had Adrian for the entire season or if both teams had lost Adrian for the entire season. In either of those scenarios, I think this squad is better.

I have to say, I think if those two teams played each other 10 times, with their full, season-opening rosters healthy, there's a good chance they'd both come away 5-5. I don't see a big advantage one way or the other.

I should add that I'm not happy about that either because it's two years later! I was hoping by now there would be a clear difference and that the Vikes might even be much better (like "competing for the Super Bowl" better). Instead, they're still stuck in the muck.

[losperros]

I have to say, I think if those two teams played each other 10 times, with their full, season-opening rosters healthy, there's a good chance they'd both come away 5-5. I don't see a big advantage one way or the other.

I should add that I'm not happy about that either because it's two years later! I was hoping by now there would be a clear difference and that the Vikes might even be much better (like "competing for the Super Bowl" better). Instead, they're still stuck in the muck.

And it's irritating, isn't it?

I have to agree with Kapp that the D is showing promise and there have been some improvements. There's more to do, yes, but I think it's farther along than the offense, which has frustrated me beyond belief. That's especially true with the OL, though I'm annoyed about some of the skill positions and even how some players are being utilized.

I think we Vikings fans have shown enough patience. Maybe it's time to be more demanding. Maybe not, I don't know. As I said, the situation is irritating.

[DK Sweets]

I have to say, I think if those two teams played each other 10 times, with their full, season-opening rosters healthy, there's a good chance they'd both come away 5-5. I don't see a big advantage one way or the other.

I should add that I'm not happy about that either because it's two years later! I was hoping by now there would be a clear difference and that the Vikes might even be much better (like "competing for the Super Bowl" better). Instead, they're still stuck in the muck.

It's frustrating, but not altogether surprising. Allen, Williams, and Winfield were all on their last legs. Our LBs and CBs stunk. There were a lot if pieces that needed replacing on defense. If Kalil and Ponder had worked out, it might have been a different story.