Oddsmakers put over/under at 6 wins

[Mothman]

It's not that I disagree with anything you're saying, but I did have to chuckle at the 4-10 wins you said earlier, I mean that pretty much covers everything outside of absolutely horrendous and vastly over achieving so I would assume you're safe there! 6-8 wins is a much more interesting guess as far as discussion goes.

LOL! Well, it's not like 4-10 wins was meant to be a prediction so I wasn't trying to cover my bases. I was just referring back to the discussion on page 1 of this thread. I see that entire range as realistic for the Vikings, which is why i wouldn't bet on that over/under. 6-8 wins is my prediction and if pushed to pick an exact total, I'd probably settle on 7! I really don't like their schedule.

The somewhat proven talent you mention really sounds like proven talent to me. We know what we're going to get out of Fusco, Rudolph, Smith, and while Kalil wasn't that great last year he's still okay at his worst. I don't see those guys regressing, in fact if they don't stay the same it's very likely they improved because they are still young and because we do have such a young team, that's why I feel like improvement is more likely to happen than regression.

To me, it takes more than one strong season to move from "somewhat proven" to "proven" which is why I phrased it as I did. I don't see Smith, Rudolph, Fusco or even Kalil as truly proven yet. I expect them all to play well and progress but we really haven't seen more than one really good season out of any of them yet.

When it comes to Rudolph, Tight ends have always flourished under Turner. Same thing with Running backs and the scariest thing to think for opposing teams is this should be Peterson's best year as a pass catcher out of the backfield. For whatever reason, Musgrave ignored that part of Peterson's game and Childress understandably used Chester Taylor in that 3rd down role. Smith seems to love Zimmer's defense so far and he already seems like a borderline probowler, would a big year from him really surprise people?

Not at all and I get all the reasons you're optimistic but an awful lot of that optimism seems to hinge on Zimmer and Turner. I'm optimistic about them too but as I've pointed out before, Musgrave fielded more productive offenses the last two years than Turner and it took Zimmer a few years to really turn Cincy's defense around and make his mark. I like what they bring to the table but I'm not sure their impact will be immediately noticeable in the win column. Like any coaches, they need the time and personnel to make it all work.

If we stopped there, I'd get it, 6 wins sounds about right. But we're not going to stop there, you have to add ALL of that potential to Sullivan, Jennings, Wright, Simpson, Loadholt, former league MVP Adrian Peterson, Blair Walsh (or does he go in the "potential" pool still? ) Felton, Cassel, Joseph, Munnerlyn, Cox, etc.

All of which sounds pretty good but doesn't strike me as superior to the overall talent on the other teams in the division and I think the Vikings have bigger questions at QB.

Then, you have to take into account Frazier vs Zimmer, Turner vs Musgrave. Eli said it best a couple of posts ago, maybe they aren't miracle workers, but really, they don't have to be to be a significant improvement. I know you thought highly of Frazier and Musgrave so you probably won't agree with that so this is just where we stand now with a difference of opinion.

You're right. We differ significantly on that. I didn't think Frazier and Musgrave were great or anything but I think they've been made scapegoats for some problems that were beyond their control.

Even if you're predicting 6-8 wins I can respect that take, you just never know with football. I can't imagine there was a single texans fan who thought they would go 2-14 for example but they did.

I doubt many Vikes fans thought they would only win 5 games last year or just 6 in 2010 but they did. Remember, going into last season, the general feeling was that Frazier and his staff had the team going in the right direction.

As you said, you just never know with football and while I'm not a cynic, my read on this team is that there's so much transition going on that with an unfavorable schedule, reaching or exceeding .500 is going to be tough.

[Mothman]

Mondry, just to share a little in your optimism for a moment (because I'd really like to believe the Vikes are going back to the playoffs this season):

In 2012, with a healthy secondary, the Vikes finished 14th in average points allowed per game and they won 10 games. Peterson's huge year in 2012 aside, I think the biggest differences between that 10-6 season and the two down years that sandwiched it were poor pass coverage and too many points allowed (some of which were due to breakdowns on offense and STs). If the Vikes can stay healthy enough on defense this year, and if Zimmer's system proves effective enough to help them get back to the middle of the league in points allowed, I think they have a legitimate shot to get back to the playoffs, assuming the offense doesn't take a huge step backward. I'm not predicting a 10 win season but I definitely see how it could happen.

I really believe their ability to come out of the first third of the schedule with at least a few wins is going to be crucial. They can't afford to dig a 1-5 or 0-6 hole for themselves. Even a 2-4 start would be tough to overcome.

[jackal]

I see six as the bottom and ten or eleven wins as a purple Kool aid dream..

so chances are 7-9 wins ...

[Purple bruise]

Only way we lose more than 10 games is if Spielman, or Wilfs, meddle with the QB situation again and force the coaching staff to start Bridgewater too soon. Vikings are an 8+ win team with Cassel.

Really Where did you come up with that information that the owners/Spielman were meddling with QB situation? I follow the Vikes as closely as anyone and I have NEVER heard anything of the sorts.
Do you have any link? If so, PLEASE show me. I will be stunned.

[dead_poet]

I don't think the Wilf's meddle but I think Spielman had a lot of say in putting Josh Freeman in there so soon and sticking with Ponder as long as they did.

That conflicts with several reports that put the onus on Frazier. Of course, there may be the possibility that Spielman "encouraged" Frazier to start Freeman after he shelled out $3 million to "land" him in the first place but we'll never know that.

Josh Freeman played in just one game with the Vikings, a Week 7 start against the Giants in which he looked wholly unprepared, most likely because he was. Freeman had signed with Minnesota less than two weeks before, and despite coach Leslie Frazier's best efforts to convince his team that Freeman was ready, he clearly was not.

"You could tell Josh did not know the offense," one Vikings player told USAToday.com's Tom Pelissero. "Practices did not really go that well that week. But Coach Frazier was in the team meetings like, 'Oh, I think this is the best week of practice we've had all year.' And everyone's like, what? What are you talking about?"

Freeman completed 20-of-53 passes in the 23-7 loss to the Giants, for 190 yards and an interception. He spent the next 10 weeks on the sidelines watching either Christian Ponder or Matt Cassel play quarterback.

According to Pelissero, some players felt Frazier turned to Freeman out of desperation after the Vikings started the season 1-4.

"Debacle," a second Vikings player told Pelissaro regarding the quarterback situation. "When they started Josh in that Giants game, we were as confused as anybody."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... gs-starter

Coach Leslie Frazier expressed no day-after regret. Freeman was the right pick to play, Frazier said, and the job is still his this week.

"If I had to do it over again, I don't think I'd do it any differently under the circumstances. I knew exactly why we made the decision. I felt very confident going into the ballgame with the decision," Frazier said Tuesday. "It didn't work out for us this time."

http://pro32.ap.org/article/frazier-say ... -was-right

[mondry]

Mondry, just to share a little in your optimism for a moment (because I'd really like to believe the Vikes are going back to the playoffs this season):

In 2012, with a healthy secondary, the Vikes finished 14th in average points allowed per game and they won 10 games. Peterson's huge year in 2012 aside, I think the biggest differences between that 10-6 season and the two down years that sandwiched it were poor pass coverage and too many points allowed (some of which were due to breakdowns on offense and STs). If the Vikes can stay healthy enough on defense this year, and if Zimmer's system proves effective enough to help them get back to the middle of the league in points allowed, I think they have a legitimate shot to get back to the playoffs, assuming the offense doesn't take a huge step backward. I'm not predicting a 10 win season but I definitely see how it could happen.

I really believe their ability to come out of the first third of the schedule with at least a few wins is going to be crucial. They can't afford to dig a 1-5 or 0-6 hole for themselves. Even a 2-4 start would be tough to overcome.

haha agreed!

What I see as far as predictions about the team goes, is an offense that should be in the top 12 for scoring. How reasonable is that? We finished tied for 14th last year and only needed to score 5 more points to be 12th last year.

I see a defense that needs a lot of work, but shouldn't be nearly as bad (or maybe unlucky is the word for it) as it was last year, they should rank around #23. Last year? 32nd in scoring, they would need to give up 74 less points to do that under last years stats. Obviously this is where the majority of improvement needs to come from if the team is going to be better than it was last year. 74 points sounds like a lot, but over 16 games, it comes out to 4.625 PPG, about 1.5 field goals worth of points.

So when you look at it like that, let's just say the offense stays the same, but we subtract 4.625 points from our opponents last year. We lost or tied 5 games by 4 points or less and that means 10-6 with that kind of improvement. When you look at 2012, I think it's pretty similar, lot of close games, but we won them. We were also 14th in scoring offense that year so exactly the same.

To me, we can practically pencil in the offense to be around #14, they've done it two years in a row with Ponder being rather ineffective and if Patterson or Peterson have big years there is upside. The question is, despite what we've done this offseason, will the defense be historically bad again / 32nd? I just can't see it happening again without a LOT of major injuries. As much as I knock Frazier, I don't think it would happen again EVEN IF HE WAS STILL HERE! The big problem last year was slot CB and NT, we had no answer really but we addressed it with one of the best slot corners in Munnerlyn and a strong NT in Joseph. Sure the defense still has holes, that's why I predict them to rank around #23, but the biggest fundamentally unsound problems scheme wise were addressed imo and I just can't see another catastrophe because let's face it, we weren't just bad last year, we were down right awful on defense, like about to set records bad. Just like it's hard to be the #1 team in something year after year I think it's hard to be the worst over and over again. The obvious choice is to dedicate resources into improving where you have the most room to improve and that's what we've done this offseason.

That's pretty much all I have for now, including my other posts in this thread. Hopefully the upcoming preseason game tomorrow will give us a small peek into the future!

[Mothman]

haha agreed!

What I see as far as predictions about the team goes, is an offense that should be in the top 12 for scoring. How reasonable is that? We finished tied for 14th last year and only needed to score 5 more points to be 12th last year.

That seems reasonable to me. As long as they stay healthy and get good enough play from their QB(s), I think they clearly have the skill position talent to rack up first downs and points.

I see a defense that needs a lot of work, but shouldn't be nearly as bad (or maybe unlucky is the word for it) as it was last year, they should rank around #23. Last year? 32nd in scoring, they would need to give up 74 less points to do that under last years stats. Obviously this is where the majority of improvement needs to come from if the team is going to be better than it was last year. 74 points sounds like a lot, but over 16 games, it comes out to 4.625 PPG, about 1.5 field goals worth of points.

So when you look at it like that, let's just say the offense stays the same, but we subtract 4.625 points from our opponents last year. We lost or tied 5 games by 4 points or less and that means 10-6 with that kind of improvement. When you look at 2012, I think it's pretty similar, lot of close games, but we won them. We were also 14th in scoring offense that year so exactly the same.

To me, we can practically pencil in the offense to be around #14, they've done it two years in a row with Ponder being rather ineffective and if Patterson or Peterson have big years there is upside. The question is, despite what we've done this offseason, will the defense be historically bad again / 32nd? I just can't see it happening again without a LOT of major injuries. As much as I knock Frazier, I don't think it would happen again EVEN IF HE WAS STILL HERE! The big problem last year was slot CB and NT, we had no answer really but we addressed it with one of the best slot corners in Munnerlyn and a strong NT in Joseph. Sure the defense still has holes, that's why I predict them to rank around #23, but the biggest fundamentally unsound problems scheme wise were addressed imo and I just can't see another catastrophe because let's face it, we weren't just bad last year, we were down right awful on defense, like about to set records bad. Just like it's hard to be the #1 team in something year after year I think it's hard to be the worst over and over again. The obvious choice is to dedicate resources into improving where you have the most room to improve and that's what we've done this offseason.

That's what needed to be done but I'm not sure Munnerlyn and Joseph will be enough. I hope so. I don't expect them to be 32nd in the league again but I wouldn't have expected that even without a coaching change. I just don't know how effective they're going to be, especially if they have to dig into the depth chart like they did last year. If they can get the defense up near where it was in 2012 and field an above average offense, they have a chance to be very competitive. On the other hand, if they don't cover and tackle better on defense, Zimmer's going to have to deal with the same defensive nightmare Frazier did, no matter what scheme he's running. Heck, he's already running into injury problems in the secondary! Spielman needs to bring in some indestructible DBs for a few years.

I just hope we see solid progress. After all, they're at least 3 years into a rebuilding plan at this point. At some point, rebuilding needs to transition into "built" and ready to compete for a championship.

[VikingsBoss]

Well, let's go through game-by-game:
@STL:Definitely winnable, but on the road? More likely: L
NE: New England has had some clunkers early the last few years, but I don't like our chances: L
@NO: The only place the Vikings are less likely to win would be in Chicago: L
ATL: W
@GB: L
DET: W
@BUF: W
@TB: W
WAS: W
@CHI: See above: L
GB: W
CAR: I think Carolina is going down a big step this year: W
NYJ: W
@DET: L
@MIA: L
CHI: W
So, I have us at 8-8, but see at least four games (@STL, NE, @GB and @MIA) that I have us losing here being games we win...of course, I have at least four games I see us winning (@TB, GB, DET, and CAR) as games we could quite easily lose.
In the end, it all boils down to the defense being better. We had four LAST-MINUTE losses (and a tie) last season-three (plus the tie) with Christian Ponder at QB! The offense wasn't the issue in those games...could a play been made here or there? Yes, but the defense gave up the lead in each one, why can't they be blamed for not making a play? Because they weren't good enough? Well, neither was Ponder. The defense will be better. They'll pressure the QB better, they'll stop the run better, they'll force more TOs...we are not talking Top 10, we're talking competent NFL defense. With a break going our way here and there, 9-7 or 10-6 is possible. Before 2012 I laid out a scenario in which I criticized releasing Ryan Longwell in favor of Blair Walsh before the season (I was wrong), but I laid out a scenario where a made FG against GB puts the Vikings in the playoffs, even though I thought 8-8 was our most likely record. I have a kind of deja vu feeling about 2014.

[Mothman]

Well, let's go through game-by-game:
@STL:Definitely winnable, but on the road? More likely: L
NE: New England has had some clunkers early the last few years, but I don't like our chances: L
@NO: The only place the Vikings are less likely to win would be in Chicago: L
ATL: W
@GB: L
DET: W
@BUF: W
@TB: W
WAS: W
@CHI: See above: L
GB: W
CAR: I think Carolina is going down a big step this year: W
NYJ: W
@DET: L
@MIA: L
CHI: W
So, I have us at 8-8, but see at least four games (@STL, NE, @GB and @MIA) that I have us losing here being games we win...of course, I have at least four games I see us winning (@TB, GB, DET, and CAR) as games we could quite easily lose.
In the end, it all boils down to the defense being better. We had five LAST-MINUTE losses last season-four with Christian Ponder at QB! The offense wasn't the issue in those games...could a play been made here or there? Yes, but the defense gave up the lead in each one, why can't they be blamed for not making a play? Because they weren't good enough? Well, neither was Ponder. The defense will be better. They'll pressure the QB better, they'll stop the run better, they'll force more TOs...we are not talking Top 10, we're talking competent NFL defense. With a break going our way here and there, 9-7 or 10-6 is possible. Before 2012 I laid out a scenario in which I criticized releasing Ryan Longwell in favor of Blair Walsh before the season (I was wrong), but I laid out a scenario where a made FG against GB puts the Vikings in the playoffs, even though I thought 8-8 was our most likely record. I have a kind of deja vu feeling about 2014.

Good post.

For the most part, I think we all agree that better defense is the big key but I do think we should keep in mind that the offense laid some HUGE eggs last season and that can't keep happening either. As you said, offense wasn't the main issue in those close losses but it was a major issue in losses to the Giants, Carolina, Cincinnati, 3 games in which they scored an overall total of just 31 points (and some of those in garbage time, when the other team had the game well in the bag).

They have a lot of work to do!

[VikingLord]

I think 6 wins is about right given the factors working against them this year and the relative strength of their division. They have some strengths on offense and I like the continuity they have on the offensive line, so if they can get even average QB play they should be able to move the ball and score enough points to keep them in most games, but I'm not so sure about the defensive side of the ball. For that unit to make notable improvements over what we saw for most of last year is going to require quite a few players to surprise to the upside. Zimmer has a proven record as a defensive coach, but this is a defense that will be sorely tested at all levels, especially given the overall quality of opposing QBs they will face all year, both inside and outside the division.

On the bright side, they really can't disappoint this year. If they aren't very good, nobody will be surprised. If they turn out to be better than expected, we'll all be happy and even more optimistic about the future. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

[mondry]

That's what needed to be done but I'm not sure Munnerlyn and Joseph will be enough. I hope so. I don't expect them to be 32nd in the league again but I wouldn't have expected that even without a coaching change. I just don't know how effective they're going to be, especially if they have to dig into the depth chart like they did last year.

Spielman needs to bring in some indestructible DBs for a few years.

I just hope we see solid progress. After all, they're at least 3 years into a rebuilding plan at this point. At some point, rebuilding needs to transition into "built" and ready to compete for a championship.

That's the thing I'm getting at, you wouldn't expect them to be that bad again if almost nothing had changed hehe. I don't want to jinx it but there's no way they could be that bad again! LOL.

Seriously, some indestructible DB's sounds great! haha

I think this will be our last year people will call into question "rebuilding" vs "built". After this one, we'll be like almost every other competitive team on the cusp where you don't have massive holes anymore, just the one weakness here or there you try to improve on every year.

For the most part, I think we all agree that better defense is the big key but I do think we should keep in mind that the offense laid some HUGE eggs last season and that can't keep happening either. As you said, offense wasn't the main issue in those close losses but it was a major issue in losses to the Giants, Carolina, Cincinnati, 3 games in which they scored an overall total of just 31 points (and some of those in garbage time, when the other team had the game well in the bag).

They have a lot of work to do!

Well one of those was the silly Josh Freeman game and the other two I would argue were just really bad matchups for us in the sense that they're strong playoff teams lead by great defenses. What that means is our 14th ranked offense isn't going to win us the game against say the #2 defense, but our #32 defense was sure going to lose it against their average ranked offenses.

That's not an excuse, but more just how it was, obviously if you want to win a title you can't just lose to a bad match up but we're not talking about a Title just yet, we're talking about an over/under of 6 games.

Oh yeah and I just wanted to say that every year there are schedules that look hard and blah blah blah but every year teams regress and aren't as scary as they looked. Like teams who had to face Atlanta and Houston last year looked scary and then they went 6-26. Or teams who got to face green bay while Rogers was out. (At least we tied! LOL)

[J. Kapp 11]

Not at all and I get all the reasons you're optimistic but an awful lot of that optimism seems to hinge on Zimmer and Turner. I'm optimistic about them too but as I've pointed out before, Musgrave fielded more productive offenses the last two years than Turner and it took Zimmer a few years to really turn Cincy's defense around and make his mark. I like what they bring to the table but I'm not sure their impact will be immediately noticeable in the win column. Like any coaches, they need the time and personnel to make it all work.

Jim, you've said this about Mike Zimmer a number of times, and I'm sorry, but it's just not true.

Zimmer was hired in January of 2008 by the Bengals as defensive coordinator after Cincinnati had finished 27th in defense in 2007. In 2008, Zimmer's first year as coordinator, the Bengals jumped to 12th. In 2009, he was named NFL Assistant Coach of the Year as he led the Bengals to the 4th-ranked defense in the league. They've been a perennial top-10 defense ever since.

The numbers do not lie, Jim. Zimmer made an immediate impact and turned Cincinnati into a top-5 defense within two seasons -- not several years. Not only that, there's not a man who played for him or coached with him who does not fully credit Mike Zimmer for the turnaround.

As for Turner, I'll take him over Bill Musgrave every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Browns' management was a train wreck last season. They gave him Brandon Weeden as quarterback, backed by Brian Hoyer, who went down with an ACL, then Jason Campbell. They traded away Trent Richardson, the only thing resembling a threat in the running game, and indicated to the world that they had thrown in the towel on the Browns' season. Other than Josh Gordon, the Browns had no talent in the receiving corps. Yet the Browns managed four Pro Bowlers on offense. Give Norv Turner any weapons at all on offense, and you've got a productive unit. His track record and reputation speak for themselves.

[indianation65]

I like the way Mr. J. Kapp 11 thinks, and I agree, 11 wins!!!!

...wisdom

[Webbfann]

Just a couple minor corrections:

@STL: W
NE: W
@NO: W
ATL: W
@GB: W
DET: W
@BUF: W
@TB: W
WAS: W
@CHI: W
CAR: W
NYJ: W
@DET: W
@MIA: W
CHI: W

GB: W
SF: W
SE: W

[Eli]

GB: W
SF: W
SE: W

Playoffs? I read something about Seattle moving to the AFC. Apparently the NFL has approved it.