PC Forums

General Category => NFL Talk => Topic started by: Gregg on March 31, 2018, 06:44:46 PM

Title: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on March 31, 2018, 06:44:46 PM
They just got Kendall Wright.

Many, now they have a good slot guy to go with Thielen and Diggs.  With Cook and Murray at RB.  Last year they did a lot to shore up their OL.

Plus they have a good defense.

They will be tough to beat.

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: marklawrence on March 31, 2018, 07:55:04 PM
Worry implies uncertainty.

I guarantee the Vikings are winning the NFC North. They're the better team. Nothing to worry about
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on April 01, 2018, 06:31:52 AM
The Vikings have done a good job of using their down years to build a solid well balanced team.  I agree, they have to be the favorite in the division, and one of the favorites in the NFC at this point.

As usual though, injuries in the NFL can change a lot as the season progresses.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: marklawrence on April 01, 2018, 11:01:21 AM
https://www.totalpackers.com/2018/03/vikings-distancing-themselves-from-nfc-north-foes/
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: RT on April 01, 2018, 11:54:24 AM
Worry implies uncertainty.

I guarantee the Vikings are winning the NFC North. They're the better team. Nothing to worry about

Whedonesque?!?
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on April 01, 2018, 12:03:50 PM
On paper the Vikes are tough on offense and defense. At least defensively, at least the last few years they have proven to be very formidable . That means little to nothing about this season. Injuries, as noted, are a big bugaboo. The Vikes last year caught lightning in a bottle. Remember, they were playing in a division where the best player was gone for most of the season; when they got a career year out of a career backup; and they needed a literal miracle to make it to the NFC championship game. And Philly needed a last minute defensive play to win the SB. And that was playing against a defense without Butler on the field. The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.

Anybody else remember when the Packes last wone the SB? They snuck into the playoffs, and then Rodgers took the team on his shoulders and propelled them to the SB. Which they won with a key defensive turnover at a crucial time. My goodness, if you want to look at a team that seems primed for a SB run, look at the Rams. On paper they have to be prohitive favorites. Which means...

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on April 01, 2018, 11:29:09 PM
Ricky, sometimes you have a long winded way of saying something that is kind of enigmatic.

To me, there is no doubt that Philly was the best team in the NFL last year, and they did it with a second team QB.

Minny won the division without their best RB and their third string QB. 

The Vikes now has a quite competent starter, with some experience.   And they have added a good DT to their already formidable line.  Plus, they have the money to sign another  FA.

Its one thing to be optimistic, but its another to underestimate your foes.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on April 02, 2018, 10:37:44 AM
Ricky, sometimes you have a long winded way of saying something that is kind of enigmatic.

To me, there is no doubt that Philly was the best team in the NFL last year, and they did it with a second team QB.

Minny won the division without their best RB and their third string QB. 

The Vikes now has a quite competent starter, with some experience.   And they have added a good DT to their already formidable line.  Plus, they have the money to sign another  FA.

Its one thing to be optimistic, but its another to underestimate your foes.

I don't underestimate the Vikings. I just don't want to put them up there as the second coming of the '85 Bears. Sure, they've made some positive changes. Meanwhile, so have the Packers. But its always "other teams" that are getting better, while the Packers are almost in crisis mode. Take the longer view- how many times have teams been touted to be great, only to falter badly? Happens with Atlanta on a regular basis. Same with the Texans. Meanwhile, what about the Rams? On paper they look like shoo-ins for the SB. And your point about the backup QB's is very telling. How many wrote off Philly when Foles took over? The number of sprained ankles from people jumping off that bandwagon kept emergency rooms packed for days. So, Keenum is with the Broncos. Does that make them significantly better? Are they now more likely to make the playoffs?

My point remains the same: until the games are played, NO ONE knows how things will go. Rodgers will be back, and if fully healthy, will lead an improved offense. There have been some developments on the defensive side for the Packers, and the pass rush might be improved, which would have a domino effect on the pass defense. Will this happen? Hopefully. By all means, though, build up the other teams in the division if that makes you feel good. And, if you could please re-post where you wrote that Philly was going to the SB shortly after Wentz went down, it would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: The GM on April 02, 2018, 12:49:00 PM
Just a few short years ago, the Seahawks won a Super Bowl and were talking dynasty.  They were young and had the greatest defense in the NFL.  They signed Russell Wilson to a huge contract, Marshawn Lynch faded, and over the course of the next few years Wilson's contract and some injuries made it difficult to resign many of their key players.  Today the defense has been basically dismantled.    The window in the NFL is short.

Enter Kirk Cousins and his big contract with the Vikings,  a roster full of defensive players including Anthony Barr who will want to get paid in the next few years.   Sure, they could compete for the Super Bowl this year.  Is Cousins a legit post-season player?  Is Dalvin Cook's injury going to slow him down?   Lots of unknowns.  Remember, it literally took a miracle for them to beat the Saints.    They are good but you need some luck, and their window is short as well.       
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: dannobanano on April 03, 2018, 06:53:18 AM
Vikes have a lot of key players who become UFA's next year. So they may be hoping to bank on the brass ring this year.

2019 Key UFA's:
Sheldon Richardson
Latavius Murray
Trae Waynes
Anthony Barr
Nick Easton
Eric Kendricks
Danielle Hunter
Stephon Diggs

https://overthecap.com/free-agency/minnesota-vikings/ (https://overthecap.com/free-agency/minnesota-vikings/)
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on April 03, 2018, 10:54:57 AM
Vikes have a lot of key players who become UFA's next year. So they may be hoping to bank on the brass ring this year.

A lot of tams do that, and if they fail, as they all too often do, they can set themselves back for years. The Rams are also loading up for a run. Only one team from the NFC will make it to the SB. So, one of (at least) "all in this year" teams will be sitting at thome. And its just as likely it could be both. How to make the SB? Get into the playoffs and get hot.

Oh, and Mark, I'm disappointed that you're already conceding the division to the Vikes. Seriously, that smacks of defeatism, or fatalism, or something else I don't usualy see in your posts. I hope everything is OK with you and yours.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Hands on April 05, 2018, 06:31:31 AM
Green Bay's roster doesn't match-up to the Vikings....however they still have Rodgers at QB and he can mask a lot of problems. I don't think the Packers are as bad as we keep hearing. A QB starting 11 games that shouldn't even be on the roster has a way of showing all the weakness of the players w/o presenting any of the positives.
I'm not an anti-Capers guy, but I also realize that a change was needed and Green Bay has done two things that will make this team remarkable:
Those two items along with a healthy Aaron Rodgers will make Green Bay a contender and allow their LOFT factor be minimized.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on April 05, 2018, 08:09:56 AM
Green Bay's roster doesn't match-up to the Vikings....however they still have Rodgers at QB and he can mask a lot of problems. I don't think the Packers are as bad as we keep hearing. A QB starting 11 games that shouldn't even be on the roster has a way of showing all the weakness of the players w/o presenting any of the positives.
I'm not an anti-Capers guy, but I also realize that a change was needed and Green Bay has done two things that will make this team remarkable:
  • New pressure defense
    New play book
Those two items along with a healthy Aaron Rodgers will make Green Bay a contender and allow their LOFT factor be minimized.

The Packers also upgraded at TE, backup QB, DL, and possibly at CB. So far. The rosters of every team are still in flux, and will be changing constantly even after "final cuts". The Vikings look formidable; and the Bears have made some strides, as have the Lions. Should we worry about them also? Or, should we be aware of the competition, but also know that games, much less entire seasons go as planned.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: PackerJoe on April 17, 2018, 06:20:58 AM
I thought the Vikings took a huge step backwards at Qb's,  Huge step backwards! 
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: RT on April 17, 2018, 07:19:46 AM
I thought the Vikings took a huge step backwards at Qb's,  Huge step backwards!

I thought of it as a parallel move in talent. Only time will tell, but huge step backwards is a pretty aggressive statement. I hope you are correct.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on April 20, 2018, 12:22:07 AM
How is it a huge step backward?

Cousins has thrown for 4K yards three years in a row. In 2016 he threw for almost 5 K yards.  He has thrown for 25 TDs or more in all three years and never threw more than 13 interceptions.

He is not injury prone like Bradford, not coming off a horrible injury like Bridgewater, and is not bouncing off a career year like Case Keenum.  Keenum never rated in at 90 or above until last year.  Cousins has done it three years in a row.

I think they overpaid for Cousins and should not have guaranteed his contract; but the idea its  a huge step backward is really unwarranted by the stats.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Bignutz on April 23, 2018, 10:14:37 PM
How is it a huge step backward?

Cousins has thrown for 4K yards three years in a row. In 2016 he threw for almost 5 K yards.  He has thrown for 25 TDs or more in all three years and never threw more than 13 interceptions.

He is not injury prone like Bradford, not coming off a horrible injury like Bridgewater, and is not bouncing off a career year like Case Keenum.  Keenum never rated in at 90 or above until last year.  Cousins has done it three years in a row.

I think they overpaid for Cousins and should not have guaranteed his contract; but the idea its  a huge step backward is really unwarranted by the stats.


Not disagreeing with you but if Cousins is the second coming why did the Redskins let him get away?
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on April 24, 2018, 06:18:29 AM
Because, as I said, they overpaid for him.  The Redskins did not want to do that.

And then the Vikes doubled down by guaranteeing the contract.

But that is the NFL.  Its a QB crazy league.

If it had been me, I would not have done it.  I probably would have kept Bridgewater and then signed McCarron. And I would have drafted a QB.

The Vikes have to win now.  Because Cousins'  contract is going to essentially force them to release at least a couple of good players from their defense in a year or two.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on April 24, 2018, 10:17:54 AM
The Vikes have to win now.  Because Cousins'  contract is going to essentially force them to release at least a couple of good players from their defense in a year or two.

Exactly. And the Vikes only advanced on an incredibly lucky set of circumstances against the Saints. The Rams at least have the excuse of having a QB still playing under his rookie contract. The Vikes are all in this year. And most times, that leads to disappointment. So, short term, they are a concern, but certainly not insurmountable. Long term, as you noted, they are stealing from Peter to pay Paul. And that is just nuts.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: dannobanano on April 24, 2018, 04:30:14 PM
Well, after being a bridemaid four times, they most likely don't give 2 hoots what they long term cost is if they can at least, one time, be the bride.

After all, that Lombardi case of theirs looks pretty lonely!

(http://www.packerpalace.com/palace10/vike-saga-7.jpg)
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on June 14, 2018, 04:59:44 PM
Because, as I said, they overpaid for him.  The Redskins did not want to do that.

And then the Vikes doubled down by guaranteeing the contract.

But that is the NFL.  Its a QB crazy league.

If it had been me, I would not have done it.  I probably would have kept Bridgewater and then signed McCarron. And I would have drafted a QB.

The Vikes have to win now.  Because Cousins'  contract is going to essentially force them to release at least a couple of good players from their defense in a year or two.
Vikes overpaid him.  Kinda like when they overpaid Everson Griffin a few years back. I'm sure that thread is here somewhere. 

FWIW.   The Redskins paid Cousins $44 million the last two years.  To put that in perspective, Rodgers "made" $45 million the last two years.  And then they turned around and paid Smith $94 million with $71 million guaranteed for 4 years. 
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on June 15, 2018, 11:34:15 AM
The thing is, the Cousins and Ryan contracts are really getting out of this world.

This is why I think you have to get back to drafting a QB every other year.  Maybe even every year.

You will hit on some of them.  And then you have insurance against a guy pulling a Cousins on you.

The best thing in the NFL is to have a rookie or second year QB who can start.

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on June 15, 2018, 03:43:46 PM
The thing is, the Cousins and Ryan contracts are really getting out of this world.

This is why I think you have to get back to drafting a QB every other year.  Maybe even every year.

You will hit on some of them.  And then you have insurance against a guy pulling a Cousins on you.

The best thing in the NFL is to have a rookie or second year QB who can start.

Cleveland's QB carousel since 1999: https://www.si.com/nfl/cleveland-browns-quarterbacks-timeline

There is no guarantee that drafting a lot of guys at a position guarantees you find starters. Look at the Packers and DB's as another example. They are still drafting at the position despite throwing a lot of draft picks at the positions (CB and S). The draft is always a crapshoot. The idea of having a game ready backup is the ideal. But in today's reality, you're lucky to have a solid starter, much less a franchise QB.

And exactly what did Cousins "pull"? He wanted to sign with Washington, but they decided to repeatedly tag him, before opting for Smith and giving him a big contract.To me, Cousins is a "stats QB" but not a proven winner. And the big contracts? They are a reflection of the lack of starting caliber QB's in the league, in spite of all those draft picks that have been spent on the position.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on June 15, 2018, 11:21:44 PM
Ricky,

Many of those Browns QB's were not drafted.  I would say half or more were trades or free agents.

Second, why not look at what Ron Wolf did.  I mean his record in QB evaluation speaks for itself.

What Cousins did was to demand an unprecedented contract for the NFL. One that the Skins would not give in to.

 Why Minny gave it to him is puzzling to me.  I already said what I would have done, for varying reasons.  One of them being that Minny is a team based upon defense.  I think this will hurt them there, not this year but in the future.  Secondly, their very promising rookie RB is returning.  Third, they had three QBs already, they did not have to get rid of all of them.

But that is what the NFL has become these days.  Everyone wants their version of Tom Brady.  I guess they look back and say, "Hmm, BB was not that hot in Cleveland was he?  He goes to New England, has Bledsoe and Brady and turns into a genius.."
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on June 16, 2018, 09:35:28 AM
Ricky,

Many of those Browns QB's were not drafted.  I would say half or more were trades or free agents.

Second, why not look at what Ron Wolf did.  I mean his record in QB evaluation speaks for itself.

What Cousins did was to demand an unprecedented contract for the NFL. One that the Skins would not give in to.

 Why Minny gave it to him is puzzling to me.  I already said what I would have done, for varying reasons.  One of them being that Minny is a team based upon defense.  I think this will hurt them there, not this year but in the future.  Secondly, their very promising rookie RB is returning.  Third, they had three QBs already, they did not have to get rid of all of them.

But that is what the NFL has become these days.  Everyone wants their version of Tom Brady.  I guess they look back and say, "Hmm, BB was not that hot in Cleveland was he?  He goes to New England, has Bledsoe and Brady and turns into a genius.."

It seems to me Ron Wolf's success with the QB position was due to his personal ability to evaluate QB talent.  Some guys got it, some guys don't.

I think your point about the Vikings is well taken, but I would point out that they are built on defense because they didn't have success at QB.  It seems to me that they are in transition, and with the NFL being a QB driven league, they are moving to a more offensive mindset with a very good receiver corps, possibly a stud at back in Dalvin Cook, - depending of course on how well he recovers, and a steadily improving offensive line and a top tight end.

Cousins contract really isn't unprecedented- look at what Garoppolo got in San Francisco- for a guy with limited starts.  Cousins has the 3 consecutive 4000 yds seasons that Garoppolo hasn't.  The thing that is odd is the fact they cut it off after 3 years- it gives them a definite out after 3 without the risk of dead money.  Garoppolo will still have 15 million of dead money at that point.

Cousins gets disrespected because "he didn't win" in Washington, but really, who is successful in Washington.  Everything Daniel Snyder does with that team fails.

You are definitely right that the QB contracts are getting oppressive, and it hurts teams because some guys aren't ever going to be good enough to put the team on their back and get you through a playoff run.  I think the Vikings had to make this move though- I think Cousins is better than Keenum, and the other two they had didn't have the legs under them to play. On top of that, none were under contract this year, and they apparently couldn't toll Bridgewater's contract.  I pointed out last season that they were going to have this problem in the off season.  The Vikings are built to win now, and having a guy that has shown he can put up the yards through the air multiple seasons makes them a very formidable offense and very complete team this year.  They are all in.

Personally, I don't know what the Redskins were thinking.  They should have signed Cousins long term 2 years ago- he showed he could play, he would have cost a lot less, and they would have had him a lot longer than Alex Smith.  Daniel Snyder is a bad owner, imo, and that has helped the Vikings.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on June 16, 2018, 01:54:04 PM
Ricky,

Many of those Browns QB's were not drafted.  I would say half or more were trades or free agents.

Second, why not look at what Ron Wolf did.  I mean his record in QB evaluation speaks for itself.

Wold was a great evaluator of QB talent. His trade for Favre proved it. The additions of Brunell and others who went on to be starters elsewhere shows it. But that is the rare exception, not the rule. For every Luck or Wentz, there are many, many Bollers and Griffins and Vince  Youngs. This is too similar to the "trade Rodgers for a boatload of draft picks and draft his replacement" talk for my taste.

What Cousins did was to demand an unprecedented contract for the NFL. One that the Skins would not give in to.

Was Cousins indeed asking for too much? Did Washington bargain in good faith, or were they just depending on the franchise tag to keep him around, and hope something would turn up? So they sign Smith and give him $40 million this year. 34 years old, a lateral move at best as far as talent, and six years older than Cousins. OF course, this is the Danny Snyder (Call me MISTER Snyder) Washington.

 Why Minny gave it to him is puzzling to me.  I already said what I would have done, for varying reasons.  One of them being that Minny is a team based upon defense.  I think this will hurt them there, not this year but in the future.  Secondly, their very promising rookie RB is returning.  Third, they had three QBs already, they did not have to get rid of all of them.

Why give it to him? They are desperate to win now. They are all in for this year, and maybe next year. Because their team is loaded with young players who are going to be hitting the end of their rookie contracts in the next year or two. And they know their window is now or never.

But that is what the NFL has become these days.  Everyone wants their version of Tom Brady.  I guess they look back and say, "Hmm, BB was not that hot in Cleveland was he?  He goes to New England, has Bledsoe and Brady and turns into a genius.."

The thing is, Belichick also posted a 10-6 season with Matt Cassell, when Brady was IR'ed with a knee injury in the first game of the season. And the Patriots do it with constant roster turnover, letting big contract players go very often, and still win.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on June 16, 2018, 07:41:44 PM
Ricky,

Many of those Browns QB's were not drafted.  I would say half or more were trades or free agents.

Second, why not look at what Ron Wolf did.  I mean his record in QB evaluation speaks for itself.

Wold was a great evaluator of QB talent. His trade for Favre proved it. The additions of Brunell and others who went on to be starters elsewhere shows it. But that is the rare exception, not the rule. For every Luck or Wentz, there are many, many Bollers and Griffins and Vince  Youngs. This is too similar to the "trade Rodgers for a boatload of draft picks and draft his replacement" talk for my taste.

What Cousins did was to demand an unprecedented contract for the NFL. One that the Skins would not give in to.

Was Cousins indeed asking for too much? Did Washington bargain in good faith, or were they just depending on the franchise tag to keep him around, and hope something would turn up? So they sign Smith and give him $40 million this year. 34 years old, a lateral move at best as far as talent, and six years older than Cousins. OF course, this is the Danny Snyder (Call me MISTER Snyder) Washington.

 Why Minny gave it to him is puzzling to me.  I already said what I would have done, for varying reasons.  One of them being that Minny is a team based upon defense.  I think this will hurt them there, not this year but in the future.  Secondly, their very promising rookie RB is returning.  Third, they had three QBs already, they did not have to get rid of all of them.

Why give it to him? They are desperate to win now. They are all in for this year, and maybe next year. Because their team is loaded with young players who are going to be hitting the end of their rookie contracts in the next year or two. And they know their window is now or never.

But that is what the NFL has become these days.  Everyone wants their version of Tom Brady.  I guess they look back and say, "Hmm, BB was not that hot in Cleveland was he?  He goes to New England, has Bledsoe and Brady and turns into a genius.."

The thing is, Belichick also posted a 10-6 season with Matt Cassell, when Brady was IR'ed with a knee injury in the first game of the season. And the Patriots do it with constant roster turnover, letting big contract players go very often, and still win.

You guys will never learn will you.  The Patriots do it with defense.  Not Brady.  Put Brady on any other team except Pittsburgh, and he may have one ring.  Pats defense has averaged 18.7 points per game since Belicheat took over.  The only other team that comes close is Pittsburgh at 18.2 points per game over the same time period.   To put that in perspective, over that time period the Packers have averaged 21.1 points per game on defense.  In their last Super Bowl year, the Packs defense gave up 15 points per game.  And in 1996 when they won with Farve, 13.1 points per game on defense.   
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on June 17, 2018, 07:08:48 AM

You guys will never learn will you.  The Patriots do it with defense.  Not Brady.  Put Brady on any other team except Pittsburgh, and he may have one ring.  Pats defense has averaged 18.7 points per game since Belicheat took over.  The only other team that comes close is Pittsburgh at 18.2 points per game over the same time period.   To put that in perspective, over that time period the Packers have averaged 21.1 points per game on defense.  In their last Super Bowl year, the Packs defense gave up 15 points per game.  And in 1996 when they won with Farve, 13.1 points per game on defense.   

It is the part that almost no one admits these days- the quarterback can't win alone.  It is a team game.

That's why your Vikings are better positioned this year than any Packer fan wants to admit.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on June 17, 2018, 09:04:22 AM
You guys will never learn will you.  The Patriots do it with defense.  Not Brady.  Put Brady on any other team except Pittsburgh, and he may have one ring.  Pats defense has averaged 18.7 points per game since Belicheat took over.  The only other team that comes close is Pittsburgh at 18.2 points per game over the same time period.   To put that in perspective, over that time period the Packers have averaged 21.1 points per game on defense.  In their last Super Bowl year, the Packs defense gave up 15 points per game.  And in 1996 when they won with Farve, 13.1 points per game on defense.   

Last year the Patriots ranked 29th in team defense. And made the SB. And lost because they benched Butler for unknown reasons, and a defensive play by the Eagles. I tried finding the defensive rankings for every SB year, but apparently will have to go year-by-year to amass that stat. I'll get back to you later.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: RT on June 17, 2018, 09:26:14 AM
You guys will never learn will you.  The Patriots do it with defense.  Not Brady.  Put Brady on any other team except Pittsburgh, and he may have one ring.  Pats defense has averaged 18.7 points per game since Belicheat took over.  The only other team that comes close is Pittsburgh at 18.2 points per game over the same time period.   To put that in perspective, over that time period the Packers have averaged 21.1 points per game on defense.  In their last Super Bowl year, the Packs defense gave up 15 points per game.  And in 1996 when they won with Farve, 13.1 points per game on defense.   

Last year the Patriots ranked 29th in team defense. And made the SB. And lost because they benched Butler for unknown reasons, and a defensive play by the Eagles. I tried finding the defensive rankings for every SB year, but apparently will have to go year-by-year to amass that stat. I'll get back to you later.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

The key stat here is scoring defense. I have done this exercise many times in the past and I think you will find it is a rare exception to have a team in the SB that is not top 5 in scoring defense. Last year the Eagles were 4th at 18.4 and the Patriots were 5th at 18.5. The last time the Packers were in the SB they were 2nd in scoring defense at 15 per game and the Steelers were 1st at 14.5. At season end, look and see who are the top 5 scoring defenses are in the NFL and you will have the list of the real contenders to win it all.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: ricky on June 17, 2018, 10:54:44 AM
Last year the Patriots ranked 29th in team defense. And made the SB. And lost because they benched Butler for unknown reasons, and a defensive play by the Eagles. I tried finding the defensive rankings for every SB year, but apparently will have to go year-by-year to amass that stat. I'll get back to you later.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

The key stat here is scoring defense. I have done this exercise many times in the past and I think you will find it is a rare exception to have a team in the SB that is not top 5 in scoring defense. Last year the Eagles were 4th at 18.4 and the Patriots were 5th at 18.5. The last time the Packers were in the SB they were 2nd in scoring defense at 15 per game and the Steelers were 1st at 14.5. At season end, look and see who are the top 5 scoring defenses are in the NFL and you will have the list of the real contenders to win it all.
[/quote]

Where did you get those stats? Because I found very different rankings for team scoring defense. Just curious.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: RT on June 17, 2018, 06:22:12 PM
Last year the Patriots ranked 29th in team defense. And made the SB. And lost because they benched Butler for unknown reasons, and a defensive play by the Eagles. I tried finding the defensive rankings for every SB year, but apparently will have to go year-by-year to amass that stat. I'll get back to you later.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1

The key stat here is scoring defense. I have done this exercise many times in the past and I think you will find it is a rare exception to have a team in the SB that is not top 5 in scoring defense. Last year the Eagles were 4th at 18.4 and the Patriots were 5th at 18.5. The last time the Packers were in the SB they were 2nd in scoring defense at 15 per game and the Steelers were 1st at 14.5. At season end, look and see who are the top 5 scoring defenses are in the NFL and you will have the list of the real contenders to win it all.

Where did you get those stats? Because I found very different rankings for team scoring defense. Just curious.
[/quote]

I used the link that you provided ricky.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: RT on June 17, 2018, 06:50:57 PM
Super Bowl winners and their scoring defense ranking.

2018 Philadelphia Eagles - 4th /18.4
2017 New England Patriots - 1st / 15.6
2016 Denver Broncos -  4th /18.5
2015 New England Patriots - 8th / 19.6     *Seahawks were 1st that year at 15.9 and was the main reason I thought they would win that game.
2014 Seattle Seahawks - 1st / 14.4

Going back to the Packers in 1997, they were the number one ranked defense that year. The Ravens teams, the Giants teams, the Buccaneers team and most of the Patriots teams all had top defenses the years they won Super Bowls.

Shhh don't tell anyone, but the facts suggest that a top defense is more important than a top QB. 
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on June 17, 2018, 08:00:25 PM
Last year the Patriots ranked 29th in team defense. And made the SB. And lost because they benched Butler for unknown reasons, and a defensive play by the Eagles. I tried finding the defensive rankings for every SB year, but apparently will have to go year-by-year to amass that stat. I'll get back to you later.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1 (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1)

The key stat here is scoring defense. I have done this exercise many times in the past and I think you will find it is a rare exception to have a team in the SB that is not top 5 in scoring defense. Last year the Eagles were 4th at 18.4 and the Patriots were 5th at 18.5. The last time the Packers were in the SB they were 2nd in scoring defense at 15 per game and the Steelers were 1st at 14.5. At season end, look and see who are the top 5 scoring defenses are in the NFL and you will have the list of the real contenders to win it all.

Where did you get those stats? Because I found very different rankings for team scoring defense. Just curious.

Yards per game doesn't matter.  Passer rating doesn't matter.  Passing yardage doesn't matter.  What matters is point per game given up on defense.  Now, I'm not saying this will guarantee a win. But in the history of the Super Bowl, the winner is in the top 8 of Points per game on defense something like 90% of the time.   The average for the winner is 4th in points per game on defense.   FWIW, the Packers Super Bowl victories, their defense's were 1, 3, 1, and 2 in points per game on defense.    Only 5 teams outside the top 10 in points per game during the season have ever won a Super Bowl.  The Giants did it twice with Manning, the Colts once, Oakland, and San Francisco.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: marklawrence on June 17, 2018, 10:43:09 PM
Shhh don't tell anyone, but the facts suggest that a top defense is more important than a top QB.

Trent Dilfer and Eli Manning would be testimony to that.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: PackerJoe on August 07, 2018, 03:18:42 PM
Do you know how many times Cousins led the Redskins to the Playoffs?  Once!  The games I saw him play he was a turnover machine when teams put pressure on him.  Now granted they didn't have the best receivers in the NFL on his team, I just don't see him better than Nick Foles, Carson Wentz, etc.  We shall see, I for one am not worried about Cousins.  Given the fact they have little talent on the OL, it gives me more optimism about the Packers.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: marklawrence on August 07, 2018, 04:58:07 PM
I think the queens have better talent than we do. I will count us lucky to split with them. Especially since we see them at home in week 2, and they traditionally start fast.

I think our chances of beating the queens at lambeau in january are decent. Our chances of beating them in MN in january are poor.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Gregg on August 09, 2018, 11:02:59 PM
Easton is out for the year.

Efflein is on the PUP.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on August 10, 2018, 12:40:18 PM
Do you know how many times Cousins led the Redskins to the Playoffs?  Once!  The games I saw him play he was a turnover machine when teams put pressure on him.  Now granted they didn't have the best receivers in the NFL on his team, I just don't see him better than Nick Foles, Carson Wentz, etc.  We shall see, I for one am not worried about Cousins.  Given the fact they have little talent on the OL, it gives me more optimism about the Packers.
The Skins defense over Cousins time there gave up an average of 24 points per game. Show me any QB that brought his team to the playoffs with his defense giving up that many points. It does't happen.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: marklawrence on August 10, 2018, 02:40:32 PM
The Skins defense over Cousins time there gave up an average of 24 points per game. Show me any QB that brought his team to the playoffs with his defense giving up that many points. It does't happen.

^this.

It's a mistake to be over-confident against the queens. This is a very good team. In fact, right now I would rank the NFC:
1. Philly
2. Rams
3. Queens
4. Packers
5. Saints

And I might have the Packers and Saints reversed.

Injuries can change that - we're experts on that point.

Law Vegas says I have the Queens and Rams reversed.

New England Patriots   7/1
Philadelphia Eagles   10/1
Minnesota Vikings     10/1
Pittsburgh Steelers   10/1
Los Angeles Rams      12/1
Green Bay Packers     14/1
Atlanta Falcons       16/1
New Orleans Saints    16/1
Houston Texans        20/1
Jacksonville Jaguars  20/1
Los Angeles Chargers  20/1
San Francisco 49ers   20/1

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on August 11, 2018, 06:15:03 AM
The Skins defense over Cousins time there gave up an average of 24 points per game. Show me any QB that brought his team to the playoffs with his defense giving up that many points. It does't happen.

I agree, the Vikings have a loaded team, and Cousins is an under rated QB, but the dickhead gene in me causes me to say the following:

In 2013, the Packers were a playoff team after losing Aaron Rodgers for a significant part of the year and giving up an average of 26.8 points per game. 

Surprisingly, as I look into it more, Peyton Manning lead the Denver Broncos to the #1 seed with a defense that gave up 24.9 points per game in 2013 and played in the Super Bowl.  The Packers, Falcons and Chiefs were all at that level in 2016.  As you can see, two Super Bowl teams have been at that level in the last 5 years.

Prior to that, 2011, the Giants, Broncos, and Lions were all at that level, with the Giants again making the Super Bowl.

It does happen.   8)
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on August 11, 2018, 07:29:52 PM
The Skins defense over Cousins time there gave up an average of 24 points per game. Show me any QB that brought his team to the playoffs with his defense giving up that many points. It does't happen.

I agree, the Vikings have a loaded team, and Cousins is an under rated QB, but the dickhead gene in me causes me to say the following:

In 2013, the Packers were a playoff team after losing Aaron Rodgers for a significant part of the year and giving up an average of 26.8 points per game. 

Surprisingly, as I look into it more, Peyton Manning lead the Denver Broncos to the #1 seed with a defense that gave up 24.9 points per game in 2013 and played in the Super Bowl.  The Packers, Falcons and Chiefs were all at that level in 2016.  As you can see, two Super Bowl teams have been at that level in the last 5 years.

Prior to that, 2011, the Giants, Broncos, and Lions were all at that level, with the Giants again making the Super Bowl.

It does happen.   8)
Chiefs were at 19.4 ppg in 2016.   And Atlanta lost to who in the Super Bowl? The Pats with the number one scoring defense.   The Giants are the outlier here. Once they made it to the playoffs they held the other teams to 14 ppg or less.  Not sure how they did it. 
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on August 12, 2018, 05:54:45 AM
Chiefs were at 19.4 ppg in 2016.   And Atlanta lost to who in the Super Bowl? The Pats with the number one scoring defense.   The Giants are the outlier here. Once they made it to the playoffs they held the other teams to 14 ppg or less.  Not sure how they did it.

Aw, come on raptorman, I give you my error on the chiefs, but don't deflect from the point.  QB's can get their teams to the playoffs when the defense gives up more than 24 points per game on the season, as 3 superbowl teams this decade have shown.

Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on August 12, 2018, 12:00:35 PM
Chiefs were at 19.4 ppg in 2016.   And Atlanta lost to who in the Super Bowl? The Pats with the number one scoring defense.   The Giants are the outlier here. Once they made it to the playoffs they held the other teams to 14 ppg or less.  Not sure how they did it.

Aw, come on raptorman, I give you my error on the chiefs, but don't deflect from the point.  QB's can get their teams to the playoffs when the defense gives up more than 24 points per game on the season, as 3 superbowl teams this decade have shown.
3 out of how many?   The number of top defenses in both the winners and losers of the Super Bowl far outweigh those that are out of the top 10.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on August 13, 2018, 03:46:33 AM
Chiefs were at 19.4 ppg in 2016.   And Atlanta lost to who in the Super Bowl? The Pats with the number one scoring defense.   The Giants are the outlier here. Once they made it to the playoffs they held the other teams to 14 ppg or less.  Not sure how they did it.

Aw, come on raptorman, I give you my error on the chiefs, but don't deflect from the point.  QB's can get their teams to the playoffs when the defense gives up more than 24 points per game on the season, as 3 superbowl teams this decade have shown.
3 out of how many?   The number of top defenses in both the winners and losers of the Super Bowl far outweigh those that are out of the top 10.

Geez raptorman, you used to be a better poster than this.  The question wasn't whether a good defense makes for a better team.
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: raptorman on August 13, 2018, 03:50:09 PM
Chiefs were at 19.4 ppg in 2016.   And Atlanta lost to who in the Super Bowl? The Pats with the number one scoring defense.   The Giants are the outlier here. Once they made it to the playoffs they held the other teams to 14 ppg or less.  Not sure how they did it.

Aw, come on raptorman, I give you my error on the chiefs, but don't deflect from the point.  QB's can get their teams to the playoffs when the defense gives up more than 24 points per game on the season, as 3 superbowl teams this decade have shown.
3 out of how many?   The number of top defenses in both the winners and losers of the Super Bowl far outweigh those that are out of the top 10.

Geez raptorman, you used to be a better poster than this.  The question wasn't whether a good defense makes for a better team.
Well apparently it's not so easy for a top QB to get his team to the Super Bowl without a good defense.  I mean they can, but the history shows that the top 5 QB in passing the last 10 years don't overcome middle of the road Defenses very often. 
Title: Re: The Vikes have me worried
Post by: Twain on August 13, 2018, 05:22:21 PM
Well apparently it's not so easy for a top QB to get his team to the Super Bowl without a good defense.  I mean they can, but the history shows that the top 5 QB in passing the last 10 years don't overcome middle of the road Defenses very often.

If you are trying to bring it back around to say that the Vikings are well positioned due to their defense- no argument there.  Go back to page two of the thread, and you will see that I agree with you.  Likewise it is hard for a good defense to get there without good QB play.  I think the Vikings have a good chance to be Top 5 in both defense and offense this year and have to be a favorite in the NFC.

I was just contesting your position that it "never happens" that a QB gets his team to the playoffs when the defense gives up more than 24 pts.  Face it, it does.  Just talking football data, nothing else.

That's not a slam on Cousins.  The Redskins are an extremely dysfunctional organization, and there was a lot more wrong with the team than a bad defense. Start with the fact that they stumbled on to a genuine franchise QB, but instead of creating stability by paying him and then getting more good players, they chose to create chaos by refusing to secure the position by not giving Cousins the contract he had earned.

Cousins doesn't need to own the Washington won lost record.  Daniel Snyder does.

As I said early in the thread, Snyder did the Vikings a huge favor by letting a talent like Cousins get to free agency.