A case for the Vikings as the best Super Bowl shot...
by mjmrad on Oct 20, 2009 10:10 PM CDT
44 comments
Most people would argue against the Vikings being the best in the league right now...
However, are they the best suited to make a Super Bowl run? Let's look at the stats:
Let's assume for the moment that the Vikings lose a few and wind up with a #2 or #3 seed...according to the numbers, this is actually a GOOD THING!
CHECK 1 - The top seed doesn't really mean anything.
- In the past 5 years, only FOUR (4) out of the TEN (10) #1 seeds actually made it to the Super Bowl AND
- ...ZERO (0) out of the TEN (10) #1 seeds actually WON the Super Bowl (2003 Patriots were the last).
CHECK 2 - Injuries usually take out 1/4 to 1/3 of the starters for nearly every team.
- Unlike the Saints, Colts, and Broncos, most of our reserves could be STARTERS! We have GREAT depth at QB, RB, WR, and some linesmen.
- We're already starting to see the infirmary reports growing around the NFL - it will catch up to everyone soon...
- This will swing the pendulum in our favor as we move down the stretch run of the season.
CHECK 3 - Growing as a team and overcoming obstacles and challenges tends to prepare a team better for the playoffs.
- NO and IND have had a cakewalk - what's going to happen if they get cocky and just waltz into the playoffs? Look at the 13-3 Colts a few years ago; how about the 13-3 Titans? How about the 13-3 Cowboys? All went home!
- Minnesota (and Denver, to a point) has faced TONS of adversity - the media, the pressure, the high expectations, not to mention THREE (3) NAIL-BITING WINS.
CHECK 4 - An All-Pro lineup
- Ladies and gentlemen, Brett Favre has been with us a total of 2 1/2 months, which, in football, is ALMOST NOTHING! Look how much better Adrian played Sunday! Look how much better Rice played! (ditto for Berrien, Harvin, Jared Allen, etc, etc, etc). In other words, WE AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET!
- Indianapolis, New Orleans, and Denver all have a lot of no-names who happen to be having good years. Have they really proven themselves? Yes, early on. However, the real pressure lies in the playoffs, and I'd bet my odds on Brett Favre over anyone, the way he's playing right now--plus his EXPERIENCE and DEPTH AROUND HIM.
So, anyone want to argue these checks? Be my guest! I, for one, am actually more excited than EVER!!! The lack of attention, the depth, the adversity, and the all-pro caliber of our lineup makes me believe that, IN THE END...
No one will stop this train!!!!!!! NO ONE........................
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I like the argument
- i have to agree its typically irrelevant who is the #1 seed. However, this year the current favorites to win home field is the Giants/Vikes/Saints. I don’t want to have to play Brees and the Saints at New Orleans where he will be able to have silence when he is on offense. I don’t want to play in New York where weather in december could get ugly. It would be tougher to win simply because you have the better team. I want it in the Dome where some great memories need to happen before its taken down.
I’d like to add
check 5: we have the best ability to dominate with the pass and run. Take note that I did not say the best run game or best pass, but best ability to utilize either in a dominant way. The Saints might have a better pass offense (but not as large of a margin as some think) but they could never match our running game. Name a team that has more pro-bowlers on defense, and a defense with as many players that will be pro-bowlers. (Greenway, E.J. Henderson) These guys have only begun. SKOL!
by PurpleJesuZ on Oct 20, 2009 11:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This may sound crazy...
…but with a defensive line like ours, I think we could put enough pressure on Brees to make it a close game and squeak out a win.
After all, we did it last year (in NO, too). And, FYI, though I think both the Saints and Vikings have improved since last year, I don’t think the Saints have improved any more so than we have.
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO & Indy are one injury away and season over... QB
Who would lead them forward? I don’t even know their backups names…
by nmvikesfan on Oct 21, 2009 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So is TJax is a worthy backup? or is it Sage?
by zebano on Oct 21, 2009 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
TJax led us to 10-6 during a tough schedule year
…and a playoff berth – he’s no Favre, but he can play pretty well…
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Been seeing a bit of bitterness creeping into you there pack
Green Bay will pull it out there a better team than they have been showing us lately. As for us being one person away from a bust team I would have to say probably not so much. Not just because we have the intrepid back up in TJ to lead us (sigh) but because we actually do have solid run and pass offenses. If Bret went down TJ could play and AD would have to pull more weight. If AD went down Chester Tayler would stand up (arguably a better fit than TJ) and Brett would have to step up a bit more.
I think that’s where people are coming from when they say we have depth on out offense. Obviously we don’t have the same thing on our D.
by Grime on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
So Favre actually is a net positive — not negative — to a team’s chances of getting through playoffs after all, eh?
Refreshing to hear a loyal Packer Backer admit that ;)
In all seriousness though … Packers are actually much more vulnerable in this regard than vikings are. I can’t imagine where Packers would be without Rodgers. Vikings at least know (proved it last year) they can at least get to playoffs without Favre. Compund that with fact that, even though Favre is so much older, Rodgers has actually been hurt & unable to play more than Brett, even though he has started many fewer games. If I recall he was lost for season after only playing a single half against Cowboys in 2007, and was also lost for most/all of season in 2006 after coming in as backup in limited action, right? IMO frankly it was stunnign to me that he made it all the way through last year without being hurt, given how quickly he went out the previous years even though hardly playing.
by puddnhead on Oct 21, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love the optimism
however, have you been paying any attention to our safties & now, our cornerback situation? Our D-Line is the best in the league, period. Our Linebackers are solid (but certainly not spectacular). Our DBs are CRAP’TASTIC. No way this team even makes it to the superbowl with an obvious inability to cover the deep ball & the middle of the field. The Saints & Colts (and just about every other team…c’mon..Shaun Hill with his shot-put arm shredded our weak safties) would do the old “41-doughnut” on us. Dont get too excited fellers…..its early on & our defense cant cover a remote control car let alone the Saints or the Colts receiving corps. Brees would drop about 50 on this defense & Bret cant do it all….neither can AP. Saints 59 Vikings 38.
I love my Vikings….but lets talk seriously & put the kool-aid down for now.
by Viking64 on Oct 21, 2009 9:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm - Perhaps / Perhaps Not
Watching some of the highlights of the Giants / Saints game on NFL Network last night revealed a lot about the Saints’ “big” win—Giants TURNOVERS!
I don’t think that game would’ve been anywhere NEAR the “blowout” that is was, were it not for all of the mistakes made by the Giants.
The Vikings have not been careless with the football this year, and I believe we can run with the Saints.
Give this team a few more weeks to gel with Favre and, write it down, I GUARANTEE we will have better offensive numbers than the Saints by the years end – WRITE IT DOWN! :)
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The offense
Has already geled with Favre, it’s week 7.
Give this team a few more weeks to gel with Favre and, write it down, I GUARANTEE we will have better offensive numbers than the Saints by the years end – WRITE IT DOWN! :)
Come on…
by packallday555 on Oct 21, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our offense is actually not that far behind NO
1 or 2 weeks of high passing attack games from Favre and you’ll see what I’m talking about is true.
And, contrary to popular opinion, our defense has kept teams in check enough that we haven’t had to run up the score on anyone (either that, or Chilly is just being a pussy at the end of games, but that’s another discussion entirely)
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is more room for growth on offense
Favre has already gotten to the point with Rice where they think alike without having to verbally change a play. He still needs that sort of growth with Berrian, Harvin and Shiancoe. That is where the growth, or increased geling will come from.
Also, I have to think we have learned our lesson at this point with “turning it on for the first 3 quarters” and then laying back. I am sure Chilly will start to put the pedal to the medal, in some of these more important games, all the way to the 2 minute warning. That alone will help our defense, who play with reckless abandon for 3 quarters and seemed gassed in the 4th when they are on the field almost the entire 4th quarter while we are “3 and out” conservative.
by PurpleJesus on Oct 21, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha alright
•Indianapolis, New Orleans, and Denver all have a lot of no-names who happen to be having good years. Have they really proven themselves? Yes, early on. However, the real pressure lies in the playoffs, and I’d bet my odds on Brett Favre over anyone, the way he’s playing right now—plus his EXPERIENCE and DEPTH AROUND HIM.
Haha so while I agree that you guys could very easily make in to the SB, I think you are drinking a bit too much of the kool-aid. They all have no namers?
Colts- Manning, Wayne, Clark, Mathis and Freeney (best DE tandem in the league), Brackett, and Sanders. And that’s not too mention that they have one of the better o-lines in the league.
Saints- Brees, Thomas, Bush (can’t deny his ability catching passes), Colston, Shockey, Ellis, Vilma, Sharper. And that’s not too mention some of the role players the have.
Broncos- Orton (yes I did it. Whether you guys want to admit it or not, Orton has been one of the Qbs in the league and is one of the best game managers out there), Marshall, Royal, Clady, Dumervil, Bailey, Dawkins. The Broncos are the real deal. They have had statistically the best defense in the league up to this point, and that offense is very good as well with Marshall, Royal, and Scheffler, plus McDaniels calling the plays.
The Vikings have a lot of big name guys as well, but they will have to improve against the pass to be able to go all the way.
by packallday555 on Oct 21, 2009 11:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
And Manning for that matter.
by packallday555 on Oct 21, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manning
…is by far the class of the NFL right now. However, he hasn’t proven he can win consistently in the playoffs. He BARELY scraped a win out over NE that 1 year to go to the SB and win
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious...
… but can’t that criticism be made against nearly every QB likely to make the playoffs except Brady? And Roethlisberger?
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 24, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it is very hard to get a winning record in a postseason
Basically the only way to have a winning record in postseason without getting to Superbowl is to be a wildcard weekend team that loses in conference championship (2-1). Otherewise, unless you make it to superbowl, you have a .500 record at best. Do the math.
That’s why I get so amused to hear everyone say how Favre is a letdown in postseason. Crissakes, the man has only gotten to two superbowls and he still is 12-10 overall. That’s pretty good actually.
by puddnhead on Oct 25, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Favre and Brees
Their numbers are almost identical right now…
I believe that Favre has 12 TD, 2 Int and Brees has 13 TD, 2 Int
If the Saints had more of a run game and the Vikes didn’t, you’d probably see Favre’s numbers higher…
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Packallday
You are always welcome here at DN. You always give a fairly objective opinion without letting your team preference impact your comments.
I agree the pass defense has been an issue, bit as I said elsewhere on this site, I attribute a lot of our problems to two reasons:
First, we have forgotten that we are a run first offense. Brett is leading us down the field so quickly in many cases that our defense is forced back on the field almost too quickly. And for a defense that plays “balls out” all the time, this creates an issue when the 4th quarter rolls around because they are “gassed”.
Second, I attribute a good part of this (the stats and final score) to a “bend but don’t break” mentality that seems to be taking place in the 4th quarter all season long. Heck, if bet if we could look at our first 3 quarter stats I bet we are amongst the leaders in most categories. It is the 4th quarter that has made us look statistically poor and basically all of that has been with the lead.
by PurpleJesus on Oct 22, 2009 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see your point...
…but I still think the Saints and Broncos pale in a comparison of Pro-Bowl caliber depth at most of their positions.
The Colts do have a lot of big names, but the Saints and Broncos still need to prove their longevity.
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We just don't have the depth at CB
This needs to be addressed in the off season.
by PurpleJesus on Oct 22, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vikings all the way to a Victory in Super Bowl XLIV!
Guaranteed!
by REVENGE4FAVRE on Oct 21, 2009 1:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Slow Down!
Let’s worry about whether the Vikings beat Pittsburgh this Sunday. WAY TOO MUCH cough Gary Anderson cough Wade-Wilson-to-Darrin Nelson-DROP cough Drew Pearson-and-Nate-Wright cough 41-0 cough 2003 5-0 start cough McCown-to-Poole cough can happen between now and January, more than enough to make February meaningless for the Vikings.
I’ve been a fan of the Vikings since I was a little kid in the early 80s, and if there is one certainty I have learned about the Vikings in close to thirty years, it is NEVER guarantee a Super Bowl trip.
by Midnight Rambler on Oct 21, 2009 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh it's Guaranteed!
The Vikings now have a true leader, who will finally bring this proud franchise to the Promised Land of a Super Bowl Victory!
by REVENGE4FAVRE on Oct 21, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team is not going to choke
Besides, even if we lose in the playoffs, it’s going to be quite a ride, and I intend to enjoy every second of this…
BTW – we have a 6 game road winning streak going into Ketchup-ville.
Also, IMO, Pittsburgh has been squeaking by their opponents and their secondary is actually looking a lot more vulnerable this year – Brett puts up 30 pts, at least. WRITE IT DOWN.
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+ 800 billion brotha!
As The Play Snaps, One Dream, One Team, One Head Coach will be on top! Will It Be The Vikings?
by UnBannedVikingholic on Oct 21, 2009 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ironic
You think the home field stats mean its not important, but it’s actually telling you the opposite. Let’s look at your first point, about top seeding:
CHECK 1 – The top seed doesn’t really mean anything.
•In the past 5 years, only FOUR (4) out of the TEN (10) #1 seeds actually made it to the Super Bowl AND
•…ZERO (0) out of the TEN (10) #1 seeds actually WON the Super Bowl (2003 Patriots were the last).
First, let’s summarize what being top seed means: 1) no wildcard playoff game, only two conference playoff games to win to reach superbowl, 2) home field advantage through conference final.
OK, regarding the first point: #1: As stated above, top seeds must play in & win two conference playoff games to get to superbowl. If seeding meant absolutely nothing, then if all else is equal, the top seed has a 50% chance of winning each of those games. The chance of winning both games is 25%. But it wasn’t 25% of the top seeds that got to superbowl (won both games) in last five years, it was 4 in 10, or 40%. So actually being top seed, statistically speaking, led to it being almost twice as likely (40/25) that you;d get to superbowl in last 5 years. So, ironcially enough, your own stats destroy your arguement here.
Regarding your 2nd point, about how of the 4 top seeds that made it to superbowl, none won it … again, your own stats hurt your argument. Once you reach superbowl, it doesn’t matter how you got there, whether wildcard road team or #1 seed, and there is no such thing as home field advantage in Superbowl. In other words, all the scedule advantages of being #1 seed disappear, and the two opponents are on more equal footing. This is important because it could be argued about my comments on the first point (that 40% of top seeds become conference champions instead of pure probability odds of 25%) that this has more to do with top seeds usually being better teams than who the play. let’s just put aside that this destroys your whole point that being top seed proves nothing, and go with it for a minute. If that is the case, that top seed should more often than not win the superbowl too, especially if playing a non-top seed. Yet, as you pointed out, in the four cases of the last five years where a top seed was playing (each of those 4 superbowls only had one top seed in it), all four teams beat a lower-seeded opponent. So, it seems that being top seed says less about how good you are compared to other playoff teams, than about what advantages you get in conference playoffs, and those advantages have real significance.
So waht is the final conclusion here? Yes, top seed does matter, not just as a mesaurement that you are a better team, but there probably is an inherent advantage of playing only two conference games & having both at home. So, yes, getting or not getting top seed DOES matter, and it matters SIGNIFICANTLY. Even just looking at your own arguement and stats!
by puddnhead on Oct 21, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Haven't you noticed though...
A trend—teams that are beginning to gel and take off at the end of the season tend to be a better gauge for playoff success than seeds?
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats can lie there ass off!
End Of Story! Stats Can’t Determine the Present. No One Knew Tom Would Throw 5 td’s in one quarter based on his stats from the previous week, it’s just all myth!
As The Play Snaps, One Dream, One Team, One Head Coach will be on top! Will It Be The Vikings?
by UnBannedVikingholic on Oct 21, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine. I’m actually agreeing with you in a way, though you maybe don’t get it. OP mjmrad was using stats to justify his claim that top seeding isn’t important. I was demonstrating that the stats he cited to “prove” that, actually “prove” the opposite.
So, I’m talking stats only because he started it, he claims they matter. I’m just saying hey, if at the end of the season you are top seed and 40$ of all previous top seeds have gotten to superbowl, then … don’t sit there and tell me stats prove that being top seed doesn’t matter!
by puddnhead on Oct 22, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kool-aid drinkers only
Slow down. The Vikings are an elite team this year and have a shot, but it’s still early. Injuries and luck are both pretty large factors in a successful superbowl run.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Oct 21, 2009 4:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing...
If I lost my enthusiasm and excitement over this season and only allowed myself to get “elated” when my team wins the big game, then I’d be better off rooting for the Patriots or the Yankees, now, wouldn’t I?
by mjmrad on Oct 21, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, nothing wrong with being excited. Just don’t set yourself up for too serious of a fall. Even where we are now, I’d say we still only have 1 in 5 chance at the very, very best for winning superbowl, so be prepared not to.
The difference between me and some others, though, is that I consider 20%, even 15%, even 10%, to be fantastic odds, and will take them any day of the week, you can’t ask for much better in week 6 If it wasn’t so hard to do, it wouldn’t be so important.
by puddnhead on Oct 22, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats can lie there ass off!
End Of Story! Stats Can’t Determine the Present. No One Knew Tom Would Throw 5 td’s in one quarter based on his stats from the previous week, it’s just all myth! And Why is so many people looking into the future. We should be worried about Pittsburgh, stop all the Superbowl talk! Just Let the teams go out there and play, and decide who wins the big game, not stats, and blogs about it!
As The Play Snaps, One Dream, One Team, One Head Coach will be on top! Will It Be The Vikings?
by UnBannedVikingholic on Oct 21, 2009 9:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Plus I prefer the Vikings to be Underdogs or considered Underdogs each matchup!
Instead of having this big bullet target on the top of our teams head!
As The Play Snaps, One Dream, One Team, One Head Coach will be on top! Will It Be The Vikings?
by UnBannedVikingholic on Oct 21, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes... Shhhhh...
I BELIEVE...
On the improbable Vikings win against the Ravens...
" OH MY HOLY BALLSACK " - IABerserker1
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 21, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wanna be under-rated too,
but I’m sick of watching the Vikings D-Secondary get burned all the time. It’s been the same story for the last 3yrs now. The Vikes can stop the run, and they can pressure the QB, but they can’t stop the pass.
by chaosg on Oct 22, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh.
same could be said for almost every team.
we don’t give up very many ‘big’ pass plays consistently – that’s the key for me.
We’ll give up yardage until the RZ, where there is less room and fewer options – that’s been our strength.
Lots of pass yards in our D stats, yet, fewer points on the board for our opponents.
I BELIEVE...
On the improbable Vikings win against the Ravens...
" OH MY HOLY BALLSACK " - IABerserker1
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Oct 22, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
