A Vikings Power Ranking Roundup for Your Pigskin Pleasure
by Gonzo on Oct 13, 2009 6:16 PM CDT
in Vikings 2009 Season
22 comments
Just a quick one for tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Yours truly is a bit on the tired side, and he also has a copy of Brütal Legend. . .umlauts RULE. . .sitting on the kitchen table. And, even with my amazing willpower, even I can only deny the awesomeness of Jack Black for so long. So, let us spend our evening by looking around some of the various sets of NFL Power Rankings and see what the impressions of the Beloved Purple are around the various sports media sites after five weeks of NFL play.
Listings coming after the jump.
They seem to be growing stronger with each passing week.
Fox Sports - #5 (up 3 from last week)
THE BRIGHT SIDE: Brett Favre's definitely made a difference as the Vikings have scored 27 points in five straight games for the first time since Minnesota's record-breaking 1998 squad. THE FLIP SIDE: The Vikes have had the early schedule on their side, with their two toughest opponents (49ers and Packers) at home, while Minny's three road trips were against NFL lowlifes Cleveland, Detroit and St, Louis.
What If Sports - #4 (up 1 from last week)
WhatIfSports.com utilizes football simulation engine to present the most comprehensive and unbiased ranking possible of all 32 teams. WhatIfSports simulated every possible matchup in the NFL 100 times, and used the winning percentages from those nearly 50,000 games to evaluate all teams based on their current rosters and depth charts.
CBS Sports - #4 (no change from last week)
They showed against St. Louis that they are veteran enough to not have letdowns. Now they get two tough ones, against Baltimore and then Pittsburgh. We'll know how good they are in three weeks.
Bleacher Report - #3 (no change from last week)
Adrian Peterson is tied for the league lead in touchdowns (7) and is second in rushing (481 yards).
NFL.com - #4
Walter Football - #5 (up 1 from last week)
A blowout win for the Vikings, but not a very convincing victory. The Rams actually had more first downs (14-9) and yards (207-157) than Minnesota did in the first half. However, they trailed 17-3 at that juncture because Kyle Boller had a fumble returned for a touchdown, and both Steven Jackson and Daniel Fells fumbled inside the Minnesota 2. If you take away the seven points off the Boller fumble, and add 14 points to St. Louis' total, the Rams would have led 17-10 at the break.
But then again, that's why the Rams are the Rams, and that's why I picked the Vikings to cover even though it was a bad spot for them coming off an emotional Monday night victory.
Yahoo! Team Ranker - #3
Also, SI.com's Peter King rated the Vikings #1 in his "Fine Fifteen" in his Monday Morning Quarterback column for this week. So we've got that going for us.
Which is nice.
The SBNation football team should have their rankings up here sometime tomorrow, and we'll be sure to link to them as soon as they've been compiled. Again, we know that power rankings don't mean a whole hell of a lot, but they're always nice fodder for discussion. . .obviously, I've only discussed the Vikings here, but you can feel free to throw out whatever comments you want about any team's ranking on any particular site.
That's all I've got for this evening, folks. . .take care, and we'll see you back here tomorrow with more Viking goodness as we lead up to the big clash with the Baltimore Ravens this Sunday!
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Fox sports and CBS said it best.
The Vikes really haven’t beat anybody yet, and we’ll know a lot more about this team after these next few games. The Vikes are a good team, but they’ll need to play better on both sides of the ball if they expect to win these next 3 games..IMO!
Go Vikes!
by chaosg on Oct 13, 2009 7:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They have though
49ers are tough and we beat them despite the blocked kick TD and looking bad at times. Packers aren’t too good this season but we were handling them well. The three trash teams we beat pretty handily.
It would be different if we had already squeaked out 3 of our 5. Steelers barely beat the Lions. Packers let the Rams hang around pretty late. We can’t help our easy early schedule but we beat the crap out of some of those teams.
by Sand0 on Oct 14, 2009 7:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that they can only play the games scheduled,
and the 49ers are good football team. But if F.Gore wasn’t hurt, things definitely could have been much worse for the Vikings. G.Coffee is good RB, but he doesn’t punish defenses like Gore does.
The Packers had a beat-up dysfunctional O-Line, that allowed the Vikings to sack Rodgers 9 times, but Rodgers still put up 384 Passing yards against the Vikes-D.
I’m far from disappointed with the Vikings so far. The difference between this year’s team and last year’s team is night and day, especially on offense. I just want to see more consistency from these guys. We were up 31-10 in the 4th qtr last week, and I still felt like the Vikes could blow-it…lol.
by chaosg on Oct 14, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's going to take a while...
…for long time Vikings fans to believe the game is won with 20+ points in the 4th.
we are too used to disappointment – we are programmed to be skeptical!
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 14, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we are too used to disappointment – we are programmed to be skeptical!
That just made me think about that 42-0 blow-out, that the Giants handed us back in 00’….lol That’s the worst football game I ever saw.
We had a pretty good football team back then too. There has to be a curse on the Vikings or something…lol.
by chaosg on Oct 14, 2009 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too true
Even a 14 point lead going in to the 4th quarter doesn’t count as a ‘comfortable lead’ to a veteran Vikings fan. We’ve seen our team snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, entirely too many times to take it for granted.
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!
by DCPurple on Oct 15, 2009 7:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its a bogus point to make...
All of the NFL’s top teams haven’t really played anybody:
NYG’s opponents have combined for 6-19 record; NO 8-11; IND 8-16; DEN 10-15; ATL 8-16; PHI 5-13; NYJ 11-13; only NE 15-9; CIN 13-11 are top ten teams (ESPN) whose opponents have winning records.
Just win baby!
by LoveHate on Oct 14, 2009 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its a bogus point to make. All of the NFL’s top teams haven’t really played anybody:
Okay, fare-enough. But the other undefeated teams have overall played better games than the Vikings have. The Vikes D is sacking the QB, but they’re giving up a ton of yards too. I think teams like the Ravens and Steelers won’t have the same problems as the Rams when they’re in the Redzone.
Offensively, the Vikings are pretty good too, but they have their share of 3&out’s too. The Run-game doesn’t seem to be as reliable as they would like.
The Vikings are obviously a top 5 team if not better, but they’ll have troubles being a top 3 when they allow 300+ offensive yards to win-less teams like the Rams. Or when their ST’s unit gives up 2 TD’s in a period of 3 games.
My point is, the Vikings need to play more consistent if they want a higher ranking.
I hear though, “Just win baby”
Go Vikes!
by chaosg on Oct 14, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yards do not equal wins!
this is why you can only count on points to determine the game’s winner.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 15, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yards do not equal wins!
True, but giving up all those yards to mediocre/crap football teams is what gives them a lower power ranking.
by chaosg on Oct 15, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure that we’ll know all THAT much more about our team after the next two games, either, necessarily. The Ravens, while tough, have looked somewhat inconsistent AND we’ll be playing them at home which could really be a boost for us. The Steelers have also looked the same way, though at least it’s a home game for them and outside. The Packers game will still be tough because of the rivalry and again, another cold, outdoor game.
If we get through these 3 games with 2 wins, I’ll be much more convinced of our long-term viability as a serious contender. If we pull through with all 3 wins, wow…I’ll really be drinking the kool-aid, along with everyone else, I’d imagine. Only netting 1 win (which if it IS only 1 win, I’d hope is against the loathsome Packers again) while have me rather worried as I think both the Steelers and Ravens are very beatable, all things considered.
A real test for us would be against the likes of the Giants or Saints or Eagles…or even the uneven Patriots, imho.
Either way, SKOL VIKINGS!!!
by Wytefang on Oct 13, 2009 7:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We'll see the Giants...
Thankfully at the end of the season. The rest of the NFC North sees the NFC-E ~ Redskins (Det), Cowboys (GB), Eagles (CHI). We each face 1 NFC-S team. The Vikings get Carolina, Lions saw Saints, GB gets TB, and Chi-town gets Atlanta this week! Our head-to-head games are against the NFC-West and the AFC-North.
EACH of those games matter for tie-breaker purposes. But I don’t think we’re going to need tie-breakers this year!
We won’t see the Saints or Eagles unless it’s in post-season… and the Patriots only if both teams make it to the SB.
Our position will depend on our performance against our remaining 3 AFC-North foes and we get Balt and Pitt back to back!
GO VIKES!!
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 13, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
kagey
Accidents rule???? Du bist feruch meine freund. lol.
by kagey on Oct 13, 2009 10:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brutal Legend
Dude, I have to wait for Amazon to ship mine. Let me know how awesome it is.
by HiWayRobry on Oct 13, 2009 11:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
2nd that notion
I would be up for a Gonzo style review of Brutal Legend. Wavering on buying that game.
by Jepp The Viking on Oct 14, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might make it into a FanPost
Sometime in the near future here, but I’ll say one thing for sure. . .
The soundtrack to this game is nothing short of freaking amazing.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
by Gonzo on Oct 14, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1 win out of 3
One win out of the next three is all we need. Looking at the remaining schedule, even if we 2 of the next coming 3 games, we could still easily be 11-5. Which I think will be plenty good enough to win the division and get a home game in the first round. Granted, it’d be nice to get to maybe 12-4 or 13-3 to get the first round bye, but that will require us at least winning 2 out of the next 3.
by Jayrome007 on Oct 14, 2009 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i think we are going to win all three
Vikings 4 the superbowl
by RaysOfHope on Oct 14, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants not better than us
I constantly see the giants ranked higher than us, but based on their schedule, they have had a similar “easy” schedule. Look at the schedule, they had washington, dallas, tampa bay, kansas city, oakland…they barely squeaked by dallas and a super bowl two years ago hardly gives them any precedence of dominance…thoughts? If anything Denver should be number one (cinnci, cleveland, oakland, dallas (by larger margin), new england. and #2 New Orleans (detroit, philli, buffalo, jets)
espn – 3.5 points over baltimore! skol vikes!
by redhearring on Oct 14, 2009 10:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. The Giants defense is hitting all cylinders. They shut out the Bucs. Yes, the Bucs are terrible, but when you can shut out a football team that’s amazing. And their offense is doing great too, especially in the passing game. Eli is maturing. They’re going to be a tough team to beat.
by Frost on Oct 14, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad the Vikings seem to play well against the Giants
They are a great team this year and we have a good chance of seeing them in the playoffs.
In terms of ranking, they are only a rough guide. The top 5 teams are fairly consistent among most systems. I think it’s way to early to say any of those 5 are better than any other.
by ChemErik on Oct 14, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the risk of sounding sacreligous
… I would have to say Peter King is crazy. There is no way we have earned #1 yet, I’d put the Giants or Saints there. We could take #1 if we have a good game this week, and definitely should if we win the following week as well, but … not right now!
Much as it pains me to say, the Fox Sports take (about us anyway) sounds more reasonable than Peter King.
by puddnhead on Oct 15, 2009 8:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
