Where Gonzo Laughs At the "Minnesota Hasn't Played Anyone" Fallacy
When the Minnesota Vikings lost to the Arizona Cardinals in Week 13, there were some "experts" out there that felt that the Vikings had been "exposed" by the Cardinals on national television. And it turns out that they were right. . .the Cardinals had given everyone an exact blueprint for defeating Minnesota. It turns out that all you need is
a) Kurt Warner
b) Anquan Boldin
c) Larry Fitzgerald
d) to hope and pray that the Vikings play their worst game of the season on the day you play your best game of the season
If you can combine all of those things, then you stand a pretty good chance of "exposing" the Minnesota Vikings. Thankfully, it appears that only one team in the NFL can put that combination of things together. . .and if the Vikings see them again, it will likely happen in Minnesota and not on the road.
But this leads to the bigger point. . .many of those same people wondered if the Vikings could beat "good" football teams after the way they looked against Arizona. And, yes, the Cardinals are a very good (and maddeningly inconsistent) football team. But so many people simply want to point at Minnesota's allegedly weak schedule when criticizing their performance that it's about time we take a little closer look at this. Trust me, it should provide a good laugh for everybody.
If you take a look at the NFL standings, you'll see that there are seven teams that have won at least nine games through the first 14 weeks of the year. . .the New Orleans Saints (13-0), the Indianapolis Colts (13-0), the Vikings (11-2), the San Diego Chargers (10-3), the Cincinnati Bengals (9-4), the Philadelphia Eagles (9-4), and the Green Bay Packers (9-4).
The Vikings have played three games against the teams in that group, two against the Packers and last week against the Bengals. They're 3-0 in those games. How have the rest of the teams on that list done against that group?
New Orleans: 1-0 (defeated a McNabb-less Eagle team in Week 2)
Indianapolis: 0-0 (haven't played a team yet that currently has at least 9 wins)
San Diego: 1-0 (defeated Philadelphia in Week 10)
Cincinnati: 1-1 (beat Green Bay in Week 2, lost to Minnesota in Week 14)
Philadelphia: 0-2 (lost to New Orleans in Week 2, lost to San Diego in Week 10)
Green Bay: 0-3 (lost twice to Minnesota, lost to Cincinnati in Week 2)
These are the kinds of teams that playoff teams will see when the post-season comes around. Yes, the Vikings have gotten the benefit of something of a weak schedule. . .by that token, so have the Packers (since their schedule is basically identical to Minnesota's). By that token, so have the Colts, who have gotten four games against Houston and Tennessee. . .and those teams don't scare anybody, regardless of who tries to tell you otherwise. . .and a few games against some other bad teams as well. By that token, so have the Saints, since outside of New Orleans, the NFC South might be the worst division in football.
In the post-season, we're not going to be seeing the Houston Texans or the Tennessee Titans or the Atlanta Falcons or teams of that ilk. We're going to be seeing the best of the best. In fact, if the playoffs started today, the worst team (based solely on record) that would get an invite to the party would be the 7-6 Jacksonville Jaguars in the AFC. The worst NFC teams that would make the playoffs are the 8-5 Cardinals and the (currently) 8-5 Dallas Cowboys.
Yes, the Vikings have played some bad teams this year. . .I'm not going to try to argue that they haven't. But when they've had the opportunity to face off against the best of the best, they've answered the bell. And they've answered that bell better and more often than any other team in the NFL to this point in the season.
0 recs |
112 comments
|
Comments
Oh this needs to go on Sportscenter
That would shut a lot of people up. All they can talk about is how great NO and Indy are when they’ve both repeatedly almost lost to bad teams. Not that I mind flying under the radar. I love the Vikes’ season so far, and I love the way it looks like the playoffs will unfold. Too bad we won’t have home field against the Saints, but I have a feeling the Saints won’t be making the NFC Champ game.
Naw
Sadly, their “experts” would say that there is something in the water in Minnesota and they haven’t proven anything where as the Colts are Gods team and the Saints are the newly blessed ones. We would still be treated like the redheaded bastard step child ESPN likes to look to us as.
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk."
"You men are only risking your lives, while I am risking an almost-certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor!"
"We have clearance Clarence. Roger Rodger, what's our vector Victor?"
by VikesFaninNM on Dec 16, 2009 9:08 AM CST up reply actions
If the Vikings were 13-0 they'd get the talk too
The media acknowledges that the Vikings are a top 3 team. That’s about all anyone can say until the Colts or Saints stumble or the playoffs come around.
cue the Saints stumble...
it starts this week with the Cowboys.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 16, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
I don't know ...
the cowboys look real lost right now, and haven’t won a December game in … I don’t know how long but its been a while. Then again, it could be a trap game for the saints, which haven’t been looking nearly as good recently.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Dec 16, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
agreed...they need to be hungry for the win
They control their destiny in the playoffs and they need this win.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 16, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
Cowboys are demoralized atm...
and I’m not sure Wade Phillips has it in him to get them back on track.
They will be playing a Saints team that Sean Payton has fired up and it will be on hostile turf of the Superdome.
I don’t like the Cowboys to win this one, though I will be rooting for them.
I hope the Saints & Colts remain undefeated
At this stage, I want them wearing themselves out and injuring their starters in order to keep their perfect records alive.
Lots of talk out there....
In the scheme of things, Vikings and many teams have had rather weak schedules overall…because there are so many mediocre teams….
I would be interested to see what the overall standings were last year at this time compared to this year…It seems just offhand and without doing any research that this year there are more so-so teams?Statistics can be skewed to support any number of positions, but yours Gonzo I like lol….
The last point you bring up is the most pertinent to those we may face in the playoffs…The Vikes are a dangerous team on all three fronts if they have all their 1st string players on the field and they are having one of their normal days (meaning good)….
As we have seen, NO and Indy are vulnerable, Vikes are as well IF they have a bad day and many many things go wrong….I am sure they are feeling/seeing the end game though, will continue to perform as they did Sunday against Cinci, and also continue to improve as we have seen throughout the year (exception being AZ), and the sky is the limit, rather than the sky is falling!
Good thing….GO VIKINGS!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Dec 16, 2009 8:10 AM CST reply actions
The Saints have the easiest schedule in the NFL.
Especially when you consider the Philly game was without McNabb
The Saints also had a game lost then gift-wrapped back to them against the Redskins.
Yeah Baltimore missed a FG against the Vikes that could have one it, but that was one of the Vikes first games without Winfield and I think Batimore is a much better team than Washington.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
I think that was the game that WInfield got hurt. Plus....
there is a big difference between missing a 44 yard field goal in the dome of the opposing team compared to missing a 20 something field goal at home. But yeah I agree.
Dealt the hand given to you.
Nice post Gonzo but your schedule is your schedule. No one knows who is going to be good & who is going to be bad. Of course we all have a pretty good idea but things change every year. There are surprise teams every year. The Titans, if you played them early you win, if you play them now you got your hands full. The Steelers & Ravens in the AFC Championship last year & now neither one of them will probably not even win their own division or make the playoffs. The Saints & Colts are good teams, yes they have had a little luck along the way to remain undefeated. Vegas makes the lines but they don’t play the games. I don’t give a rats ass if we go into the Superdome as 14 point underdogs. Our guys are as good as anyones. Bottom line: We will get our chance to prove ourselves.
The Saints
Have also been used to being able to have multiple INTs and turnovers in games and still win. They will not be afforded the same luxury against the Vikings.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
Right on, Gonzo
This is a great post. I have been looking at the standings for days trying to figure out some way to say exactly what you said, Gonzo. I originally thought the reason the Vikings hadn’t beat anyone was because there were more bad (or sub .500) teams this year, but there are 16 below .500 and 16 above—naturally. So that didn’t work. But this does. And it bodes well for the playoffs. While the Vikings may have played the Packers during a time when they couldn’t keep their quarterback upright, they still beat them twice, decisively. It’s who you play and when you play them. The Saints caught the Eagles at the right time. The Cards caught the Vikings on the right day. That’s the way it goes. And you just have to be ready to tee it up when the playoffs start. The Vikings should be ashamed or afraid to play no one.
Minnesota Vikings Examiner
visit: http://www.examiner.com/x-1723-Minnesota-Vikings-Examiner
Go Vikes!
from a Bengals fan
thank you so much for including us as one of the good teams you beat. it does a lot for our morale. i know it’s not easy to win 9 games in this league, but winning the 10th will be extremely difficult if these injuries keep piling up.
great post BTW.
Bengals
You have a great coach. You have tons of talent on the team. It’s no fluke you are going to win the AFC North. If the Bengals need anything, it’s more confidence.
by medicineball on Dec 16, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
Bengals
Taking the handcuffs off Palmer would be nice too…where is the deadly PA that used to be there?
+1
I’ve been waiting for it to return also , since the Steelers “Tonya Hardinged” C Palmer in that playoff game.
by midnightwonder on Dec 17, 2009 7:35 AM CST up reply actions
You guys swept your division. That isn't easy to do.
Even if you get to play the Browns twice.
Thanks for beating the Steelers.
Twice.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 16, 2009 4:04 PM CST up reply actions
I'll second that...
Two of my best friends are Steelers fans and they wouldn’t let me hear the end of it after the Vikings – Steelers game.
Now they aren’t even interested in watching the rest of their season since they have been (almost) eliminated from the playoffs. Meanwhile I knew Minnesota was the better team coming out of that game and the Vikings have since proved me correct.
Packers "Surging"
Yet Green Bay, who is 9-4 against mostly the same teams as the Vikings, got blown out by CIncinatti, and lost to 1-12 Tampa Bay, in addition to being beaten by Minnesota twice, are described as “surging” and being a likely Super Bowl contender whom no one wants to face in the playoffs.
by Midnight Rambler on Dec 16, 2009 10:01 AM CST reply actions
For good reason
I’m not a Packer fan by any means, but I think of myself as a reasonable and level-headed person. And let me tell you that the Packers team that is playing now is NOT the same Packer team we faced twice, or that lost to the Bengals/Bucs. Their O-line is finally working, and their defense seemingly has addition by subtraction with the removal of Kampman. Not to mention Ryan Grant finally seems to have realized that the season’s started.
Packers are just an average team..at best.
Yeah they’ve done a great job beating crappy teams. I just feel lucky that we missed out on having to play the unstoppable Tampa Bay Buccanears.
That… doesn’t change the fact they’re a different team. That O-line is FINALLY doing what an O-line should do. Before, even against the crappy teams, they’d give up a ridiculous ammount of sacks and pressure. Maybe it’s not the O-line as much as Rodgers realizing that he needs to throw the ball sooner. Who knows? Point is, it is not the same team we faced twice already.
Perhaps
But on a side note, I don’t see how when Ryan Grant FINALLY has one big run, count it, ONE, the Packer running game is suddenly back. Ryan Grant couldn’t even carry Chester Taylor’s jock strap.
by Jepp The Viking on Dec 16, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions
It wasn’t just the one run. Grants been performing better recently than he was to start the season. Since playing us the second time, he’s had a good or decent game pretty much every week, with the exception of the baltimore game. Now I love me Chester Taylor, he’s awesome. But I think the two are pretty comparable.
the OLine
has improved… not Ryan Grant.
for reference… see Bears OLine and Matt Forte.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 16, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
Its probably a mix of both, but either way, their running game has been more effective lately than it was before.
You've also been playing some crappy teams
Although the Ravens were a good test. Your going to run into the same thing the Minnesota is. Your schedule right now is fairly week so people are going to second guess your veracity.
First off
My team is the Vikes. I’m simply saying the Packers aren’t the same team we played before. Yes, they’ve played crappy teams. Not disputing it. Really though, if you look at any schedule, I’m pretty sure that everyone with a winning season right now has played only a handful of teams in the playoff hunt.
"Got blown out by Cincinatti..."
Uh, counting is hard, isn’t it? They lost by 7 points and the game ended with the Packers on the Bengals 10 yard line.
Yeah, they lost, and yeah, they haven’t beaten anyone with a winning record other than Dallas and the Ravens, and yeah, it’s tough to imagine them winning a game in the playoffs against the Cards or Eagles on the road, let alone the Saints or the Vikings, so your point is good. No sense exaggerating when you’ve got enough ammo to make a good argument without doing so.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 18, 2009 6:49 AM CST up reply actions
Nicely put
I don’t think I could have done any better myself. I believe we match up well against any team out there. Some days…namely the arizona + pittsburgh games….you just don’t bring your A game to the table. If we are firing on all cylinders we will be hard to beat.
I believe all Viking fans must be masochistic!!
I love me some statistical facts to refute illusions of grandure!
The stats speak for themselves, don’t they?
by Eric J. Thompson on Dec 16, 2009 10:35 AM CST reply actions
dome field advantage
Good post and I’d agree, but I still have to say that playing in the Superdome would be huge advantage for the Saints. That place will be insane and that team/city is unified more than ever. On a neutral field, I’d like the Vikes chances better, but in the SuperDome and with Childress calling the shots, I wont hold my breath. With the Vikes weakness in the secondary, and the Saints utilize the 4 or 5 receiver sets, it only takes a couple plays. That Cards game showed me our coaches have no idea how to roll a safety over the top of the receivers. Hope I’m wrong.
I hate it but I can't help but agree with you
That’s what I’m thinking, too.
I’m also worried about the a-hole Packers. With our luck, we’ll have to play them and they’ll get revenge and then crow about that crap the rest of the year. I swear to gawd I’m going to get medieval on Packer fans and websites is that does happen. Seriously. I hate that team and its fans (well, most of ’em) with a fiery passion.
Hmmm..
If we were to consider teams that we have played that are likely to make the playoffs, the AZ Cardinals should almost be included in the above list. But when I think of the game where the Cardinals & Vikings played, I think that the Vikings played that game with the idea and almost intent that they would meet again in the playoffs. They may have limited their playbook, who knows..
Playing the Pack for a 3rd time, would not necessarily scare me. Favre played some of his best ball this year going up against the Packers. It would be at home in the dome, and we have improved just like they have improved. So, I would predict a closer game than the game at Lambeau, but also a win like when we won in the Metrodome. I would think we would win by a TD in that game.
Good point
Really good point about the Vikings not showing their cards early. ( Ha) Not showing the full play book could have been the reason Favre seem at a loss! Maybe having Harven available would have help more than the play book! Or opened it more. Taylor could have been used better, more as a Harvin type player then let too show! No Winfield shows with the better teams. No matter what it will come down to the O-line and their improvement, the chink in are armor, the D-backs, and injuries down the stretch?
by Chuck forman on Dec 17, 2009 2:38 PM CST up reply actions
I understand the frustration
But it really donesn’t matter, I woulnd’t get so worked up and defensive.
Also, you need to be careful here, you are potentially as guilty here of being selective in your statistics as the people you criticize. Why did you choose nine wins as the cutoff? What if we make the cutoff at six wins, representing “at least average teams” (6 wins at this point means winning at least as often as losing, rounding down). Then we have four additional games added (49ers, steelers, cardinals, ravens) in wihich we were 2-2, and frankly our two wins were just by the hair of our chinny-chin-chin …
Furthermore, most of that talk about how we haven’t beat anyone came before Sunday’s game, when we were 2-0 against 9 win teams, not 3-0 … and furthermore those two wins were against the same team, so it could be said we’d only beaten one “good team” even by your definition of the word. It isn’t that hard to understand why people would wonder even by that definition, but then you take my definition (6 wins or better) & you count teams, not games … in that case we had beaten three “average or better” teams at that time (Packers, 49ers, Ravens) — only one of them convincingly — and had lost to two average or better teams.
Sorry, but it’s really not hard to understand this POV, especially given that — as you point out in the first sentence — all of this was beign said before we played the bengals.
Miscontrued
I believe the point of the post was to limit competition to playoff calibur teams, and it will take 9 wins this year to make the playoffs. Afterall, it is beating that high quality of a team that matters.
by Jepp The Viking on Dec 16, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
Arizona is not making the playoffs?
Really? The 49ers gonna catch them? That’s the only way ’zona is not in playoffs.!
The 49ers lost to the Seahwks the week before the Arizona game so there not consistant enough to win out.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
Put another way, following up on my first reply to you
You proved my point. Which was: the 9 win cutoff is an arbitrary one, to maximize statistics in favor of Vikings. What you say should have been the real intent — to measure us against playoff caliber teams. That’s why the 9 win cutoff seems contrived, it conveniently lops off the Cardinals loss … and the Cardinals have the fourth best record in the NFC and are very close to being a lock for the NFC West Division winner.
I think Gonzo was exaggerating “what it took” for Cardinals to beat us. He wrote “to hope and pray that the Vikings play their worst game of the season on the day you play your best game of the season.” In reality, the Cardinals could have beat us even if they had played much less well than they did. Let’s be honest, they killed us. Childress, Peterson, Favre, and Allen, and probably many other players all agree we got beat soundly by a good team. Why can’t we do that here?
I think we are arguing the same point
It takes 9 wins this year to make the playoffs. When the Cards get to 9 or 10, which they will, we add them to the ‘’playoff calibur’’ discussion with the abovementioned 7. Then, we’d be 3-1 versus those teams and still very respectable. It does indeed make the point that when facing the top 25% of the NFL, we are 3-1. Thus, the whole “the vikings haven’t played anyone” argument is just hot garbage.
by Jepp The Viking on Dec 16, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions
Besides,
that 9 win cutt off isn’t ’’arbitrary’’. It is what decides who stays home and who goes to the playoffs.
by Jepp The Viking on Dec 16, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
There are six playoff seeds. Only three teams in NFC have 9 wins right now. Obviously there are three teams that will get into playoffs that don’t have 9 wins right now!
Actually
There are 7 teams with 9 or more wins right now.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 16, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions
I said in the NFC
If you want to include the AFC, then there also would be twelve seeds instead of six that I stated. So, 5 teams who don’t have nine wins yet getting in playoffs. Almost one half the playoff field, looking at entire NFL.
Nevermind
I think we were talking in cross purposes there.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 16, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions
The point was "quality" wins
I personally think the line could possibly include 8-5 teams as well but 9 wins really is a clear line of quality teams. Frankly, other than DEN, which 8-5 team hasn’t accumulated almost all of their wins against weak teams… I don’t want to answer for Gonzo but you could clearly argue 8-5 is bordering on average if you look at it that way.
Besides, this group includes 7 teams which is more than 20% of the NFL. Do you really think more than 20% of the league is “quality”?
9 wins is a very good line to measure the “quality” teams that likely have a legitimate chance, not 8, IMO.
To quote Roy Jones Jr.
“They say i ain’t beat noboby, i just make them look like nobody”
Jared Allen is to football what Jason Voorhees is to Lake Crystal.
Percy Harvin is Devin Hester, except someone very smart decided to teach him how to catch and run routes.
No reason to criticize!!!
I understand that by criticizing, your forcing us all to look at a different point of view. I believe the 9 wins thus far this season is a good way of looking at how we have done against those particular teams. AZ is likely to make the playoffs at the top of their division, but their division as a whole is weak. If we were to take the Cardinals and put them into any other division, they would maybe not make the cut & get into the playoffs. (However, going by their record & games remaining, their playoff hunt looks promising) If we were to look at the season of 2008, the Cardinals had the worst record out of all the teams from the NFC that made it to the playoffs. Teams that had the wildcard had better records than the Cardinals (9-7). Surprisingly, this team managed to make it all the way to the big game. I do not remember much of last year’s playoffs, but I would undoubtably guess that the Cardinals were considered the one’s favored to lose each game.
Going forward for the Vikings, our next two games are against mediocre teams. Prior to playing the Cardinals, we had some rather easier games (Lions, Seahawks, Bears). We were on a streak of wins, due to poor teams. The Panthers have a banged up roster with most players on injured reserve. Bears are out of the playoff run, and we did a pretty good beating to them. In my mind, they are must-win games, and I believe the Bears will be playing for pride & jobs over anything else. NY Giants will be a challenge, but the game may not mean much to us. I think our starters should play a few series on each side of the ball to keep us motivated and in the correct mindset. Our 2nd & 3rd stringers should take over to get a few reps in to make sure they are ready for playoffs if they are needed.
If we get a top two seed, I still want to see us play the Giants to win. Well, for a lot longer than a few series anyway, at least a full half. I think it will get us a LOT more ready for the playoffs to play hard against the Giants on Jan 3 — and then get two weeks rest to recover from it, the thing that makes it possible for me to say this — than to have many of the starters sit and watch.
Somewhat agree
I would hate to see a game played by our starters and have a few key people get hurt. If the NY Giants are in a serious NEED of a WIN! They will play like this is the last game of the year (pending a loss). However, I do believe giving the starters two weeks of rest could be too much.
The scenario that I would like to see is having the 2nd stringers play the game, or have key starters sit out & have some of the 1st stringers play.
For example, have the following not start (Favre – he’s experienced, and the rest for him could be surely used), Peterson (make sure he’s 100% for first playoff game), (Rice,Harvin, & Berrian – maybe have them go for a 1/2…)
Rest of the starters should play for the 1st half. I want to see both T. Jack & Sage get some reps in. You never know if they may be needed. I would hate for a playoff game, Favre gets injured and the back-up QBs be completely out of rhythm.
I guess we won’t know what happens until that game comes and the position we are in.
And i know the feelings will be mixed about how to go about it.
agreed.
we were really flat after the bye week and we can’t afford to have that happen going into the playoffs.
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 16, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions
Downsides of a Bye
Sometimes, too much rest can equal a bad thing!
I think either way, the Vikings should have 1 week of Hard practice..
Working on basics (tackling, blocking, running our own plays & fixing mistakes)
The following week (After we find out who we’ll be playing) Should have time spent on preparing for that game and being prepared..
The other downside of a bye is we don’t get to see our Vikings play another Sunday & have to wait an additional week. But I think the other playoff games will be just as fun to watch & just as important to watch.
Upside of a Bye
Yes, I’ll take the bye week, especially one that comes with a home field advantage the following week.
No one ever loses on bye week, and losing is fatal to playing again during in the playoffs.
No opposing defender will get so frustrated during the bye week by seeing his season ending on the scoreboard that he starts flying personal kamikaze missions against your playmakers, which may make them unavailable for weeks in which you dearly won’t want to be without them.
As a coach, you get a head start in planning for your next opponent by not having to spend time coaching up a gameplan for the bye week.
Despite all the talk about teams being flat after a bye, the record of teams coming out of a bye week shows it to be an advantage. (Sure, if you all fly to Vegas on your bye week, it might well harm you, but that is a choice, not a requirement. You could stay in the weight room and study film if winning is actually important to you. If you lack a winning attitude, you were probably a bum, not the victim of a bye week.)
Exactly
A bye week takes you one step closer to the ultimate goal.
by medicineball on Dec 16, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
Ya I know..
I’d still rather take the BYE..
But I do know I’ll miss watching my favorite Vikings playing that Sunday
I’ll just view that BYE as an automatic WIN
If only there were a way to control for...
the bye teams generally being better than non-bye teams, then we’d have a real idea of how much of an advantage the bye-week gives a team. Granted, I would not argue that bye weeks are a disadvantage, and I probably do not even have to argue that bye weeks do not account for most of the variance in second round outcomes. I’m just curious about the approximate variance attributable to bye weeks when team quality/strength is accounted for.
by oblivionspocket on Dec 17, 2009 4:34 AM CST up reply actions
You could search for games played between
teams that had the same record but one got a bye because of a tiebreaker. It’d be a much smaller sample though.
What about the Cardinals?
Even though Arizona doesn’t have 9+ wins, I think it’s neglectful not to include them, especially since the Vikes could very well face them again in the post-season.
Cards make it by default
Cards will be in the playoffs by default – due to a poor division.
Should they be respected? Why yes… Most definately, considering that they were in the Superbowl last year (Also NFC champs) – But as for the article, I believe the write-up was by taking the top teams with the top records using the 9 wins as a way of showing where we rate.
If the Cardinals had won Monday night, they would of been included. Could the 49ers win-out and take the division? (Most likely not..)
And when the Cards reach 9 wins
which they likely will, then the Vikes will be 3-1 in games played against teams with at least 9 wins (and thus guaranteed a winning season). that doesn’t negate the statement that the vikes have indeed played against quality opponents and done quite well. nor does it negate the sentiments of the strength of our schedule in comparison to other teams seen as better, simply because their record is better.
NO plays Dallas, Tampa and Carolina next, of those teams, only Dallas can be a 9 win team. if they win that game, they will play only 2 games against teams with a >500 record.
and as for Indy they play Jax, Jets and Buff. the Jets and JAx could win 9 games and if they do, then Indy could go 2-0 against 9 win teams. neither has played or will play against as meny winning teams as the vikes, and yet the vikes had the supposedly weakest achedule.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Dec 16, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
Something to think about..
The Vikings finished at the top of the NFC North last season. When the regular season was picked for this year, 3 of our games were going to be against the division leaders of other divisions. (i.e., Carolina Panthers, NY Giants, & AZ Cardinals). We play each team in our own division twice. We played the whole division of the reignig NFC champions & AFC Champions (NFC-West & AFC North). Out of those two complete division, it is obvious that the AFC-North was the more competitive to play this year.
If you were to think about it, before the seaosn began, you would think that our schedule would be one of the hardest. (Assuming Carolina would be good again, Cardinals to be successful, and the Giants to be doing well as well. Same would go for most of the AFC North with the Steelers & the Ravens. In the AFC North, we were surprised to see the Bengals do so well. Regardless of how the season has gone, prior to it starting, you would think we had a pretty hard schedule. Luckily, it started off easy for Favre to adjust accordingly to the new offense.
NO Saints however, have 3 games they play of other divisions where teams finished last (Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions, and St. Louis Rams) NO had 3 easy gimme’s. NO Saints went 8-8 last year in a very competitive division. Were they good then? Yes, but better this year. Their strength of schedule to me seems weak as far as the NFC goes.
Or would at least be assumed to be weaker in comparisson to the Vikings.
Let the wannabes worry about irrelevant stats
while the Vikings just take care of business and win out, including the playoffs and super bowl. I for one don’t care how they get it done just so long as they get it done. You are always going to have the homers from other teams trying to justify how their team is better than yours even though you play the same schedule, beat them twice, and have a better record than them.
But....but...but
they’re surging at just the right time! :D If we have to face them again we will defeat them for a 3rd time this year. Mark my words!
Especially at home
I can not ‘see’ Favre losing to the Packers. Not this year!!!!
Maybe the Pack may get lucky and get their revenge next year by luck, but, this year? No…
I don’t think Favre got sacked at all during each of the Packer games. He was hurried a couple of times, but that was about it.
I agree...
I look forward to the possible matchup. Especially when the TV crew zooms in on McCarthy after a good play by the Vikings, you get to look at humpty dumpty with an almost crying look on his face. Priceless….
LOL
It would be a look of.. “Oh, I’m soo close….. So Close!!” As he thinks to himself, "If I don’t win this game, I am for sure out of a job next year, and if by any chance I do survive and get to keep my job, every single Packer fan will hate me.
However, if by some strike of luck we lose.. We would NEVER hear the end of it.
But to beat them 3 times this season, I’ll take that risk.
If we play them enough times
Packers will eventually win. Just the way the NFL works, “any given Sunday” and all that.
Packers are definitely playing better now than they did in first half. Comparing their 1st game against bears to their second is a barometer of that. Even though it was a road game, they looked better last Sunday than week 1
Packers are surging lately
….because they haven’t played the Vikings lately…SKOL
by BigSkyViking on Dec 16, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions
Dig in...
All this talk about who beat who…On any given Sunday any body can beat any body. this is the NFL…The best of the best…You start out by learning to play the game, Then hopefully you master it. Then you begin to learn to win as a team…Then you learn to be a Championship team…Winning in the NFL is like pushing a blocking sled with 5 men for the whole 60 minutes. You have to dig in, slam into that sled, push with all your strength and power..(Like the water boy, imagine someone making fun of your mama.) You can’t take a play off, you cant take any team for granted in this league. I notice a lot of teams after they score will seem to let up on the kickoff and allow the other team great field position…You have to enforce your will for sixty minutes without letting up, to be a champion in this league.( It doesn’t hurt to have 11 potential pro bowlers on your team either.) If the Vikings learn how to do this it won’t matter who they play. Heck, If your a true champion you want to play the best of the best…Bring it on…Here’s to the rest of season, “Lets go and crush some Skulls” Give me a Superbowl or give me Death…Go Vikes!!!
+1
Couldn’t agree more… and I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. If the Vikings play to their full potential, there isn’t a team that they can’t beat right now.
Vikings will get their revenge...
Vikings will likely be facing the Cardinals in a divisional playoff round. Except, this time , the game will be played in the Metrodome.
Then they will either host the Eagles, in Minnesota or go New Orleans to entertain the Aints.
I have no clue who we will meet in the Superbowl. Any suggestions?
Let's take it 1 game at a time.
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 16, 2009 5:48 PM CST up reply actions
Slow Down!
Let’s worry about whether the Vikings beat Carolina this Sunday.
by Midnight Rambler on Dec 17, 2009 9:11 AM CST up reply actions
No team is better than any other team
until they prove on the gridiron on sunday afternoon. or sunday night, or monday night, or thursday. even saturday night i guess
From the only TRUE North division
by thewild_viking_twins on Dec 16, 2009 7:47 PM CST reply actions
the dark truth
first, breaking their pass defence down. 3 potential pro bowlers in their secondary coached by ex-steelers. a true olb. and lets face it an average d-line facing 4 injured viking o-line starters. then, an obvious banged up ap, deny it if you will, and a missing harvin. combine this with the potential desire not to overly gameplan a team we will obviously deal with in jan.. i believe chilly underestimated kurt, who played collegeball in my city,and his abilitiy to tame his migraines and concussions to play thru the symptoms. the real test was to see how they would bounce back. as that nostidamus prediction stated they truely passed thru those tigers know didn’tthey…
Is this comment available in English too?
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 16, 2009 10:04 PM CST up reply actions
That would be nice
Harvin played in Arizona if gothicpurple said otherwise.
by medicineball on Dec 16, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions
EVERY Game Counts
Even the games after we clinch the WC, the Division, or a top seed.
There’s no such thing as “garbage time” when your biggest toughest player can be taken out by a hard hit or freak accident that results in broken femur. Second string players are almost as important as first stringers, they’re the ones that give your first stringers a breather to recover and you can’t break down just because your all-pro position guys are gassed.
Every point in every game, counts. At the end of the year when there’s a chance your team might be tied with someone else for playoff or position or HFA, they look at things like who beat who and the PF vs PA ratios.
All of it is important, all of it adds up to the advantages (or disadvantages) at the end of the year, and can help or hinder a team in going all the way. I regret every loss, every missed FG even if we were up by 20 points, every bad play call, every injury, every TD that was nullified by a penalty. All of it is important, and part of the final equation in the very last game the team plays each season.
And when it comes to a final game or two after the playoff position is decided, even those ‘meaningless’ games are important because, even if there’s nothing to win, there’s plenty to lose. How many top players get injured every year in the utterly meaningless pre-season? Balance the value of keeping the 1st stringers ‘in practice’ vs the risk of losing 1 or more top players, is it worth it? I don’t think so.
The fact that there are so many teams with very good records this year means that there has to be an equal number of teams with bad records; those wins had to come from somewhere, the NFL doesn’t give a W for participation.
The Vikings will need to take every game from here on out with complete seriousness. Letting down after the next bye would mean going home early to watch better teams duke it out to the end. Whether they’re playing for the HFA or they’re conserving strength, they can’t afford to take any of these games lightly or presume that the other team is going to roll over for them.
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!
I can’t figure out whether you are saying it is worth risking injury to win any potentially “meaningless” games or not. Seriously, I can’t figure out which side of that argument you’re on; you seem to take both sides, but claim they are the same side?
Here’s the thing (if my math is right on this): If we win, Saints win, Packers and Eagles lose this weekend, then … we are #2 seed no matter WHAT we do (or any other team does) in last two weeks. tht is the defintion of “garbage time.” You really think we need to keep playing for “every point in every game” in the next two games if that scenario comes to pass?!?
True
But, if we win, the division is ours, and the Packers could only be a wild card, regardless of what they do.
by medicineball on Dec 17, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions
good point
thanks for clarifying.
I’m kinda in the middle on all this myself. I’d like to see Vikings get locked into the #2 seed this weekend (which I think would mean a Viking win, a Saints win, and an Eagles loss? I’m not sure if that locks us out of #1 though, now thta I think more … darn tiebreakers!) Then we rest starters for most of that outdoor game against the Bears, and then shake some of the rust off by playing them at least a half against the Giants. I think playing that last week is importants, don’t want to have 3 (or even 4) weeks off, then try to start the engines in the divisional round. Otherwise might sound like my car yesterday morning (“wwwwIRRRRR …. wwwwwwwwwwIRRRRrrrrrr …. wwwwwwwwwwwwwiRRRRRRchchchchchflpthffffffff ….”)
No, that wouldn’t lock us out of #1. But it will be unlikely. The most obvious scenario would be us running the table now, and the Saints dropping all three. Highly unlikely to happen, but you never know. However, you are correct. A victory by us, in addition to a loss by the Eagles, gives us an automatic first round bye.
Clarification - I'm saying that every game is meaningful
Whether we play it for a needed victory, or we rest our 1st stringers, the impact is still going to be meaningful. People keep talking about “garbage time” as if there’s parts of a game that don’t count, and I think that’s misleading. All of it counts, one way or the other.
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!
In response to DCPurple..." EVERY Game Counts "
Every game counts, to a point. You have to out- weigh the things that are more important to your team in the playoffs? Toward the end of regular season, when certain goals and achievements already accomplished.
It is foolish to risk your key players to injuries and fatigue out on the field. NFL Coaches would rest their key players and keep them fresh and healthy for the playoffs. The more important question is how much rest do those players need, without getting too rusty or losing focus, to make a run in the playoffs?
Try the
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 17, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed
You don’t want them to get out of shape, but you want to make sure they’re ready and in peak condition. And you don’t want to put them at too much risk, so how does a coach balance it? That’s something I hope that Chilly is able to work out, you don’t want the final game to mean bad news for the playoffs.
I just don’t think that you can take any of it for granted. You can’t assume that the Vikings are going to beat the Bears like red-headed step-children (again), or that even if they do, it won’t result in a key injury. You can’t assume that because the Vikings are up by 14 points going into the 4th quarter and T-Jack has replaced Favre, that the last quarter is “garbage time” where nothing good or of value, and nothing bad, can happen. It can, it does, and it will again.
The game has to be managed in all it’s phases, and mostly Chilly hasn’t been bad at that. I’m not convinced he’s an HoF coach yet, but you watch the guy on the sideline and he makes a lot of good calls now that he has Favre behind center. I love the fact that he’s usually right on top of throwing the challenge flag when it’s needed, too.
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!
Correction!
You have to out- weigh the things that are more important to your team in the playoffs*
Reply button
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 17, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions
RIP Chris Henry
My heart goes out to friends and family of Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver, Chris Henry.
Next time
"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?" -Joe Kapp
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Dec 17, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions
lol!
does the hand over his head from front-to-back with the ‘whizzing’ noise
I BELIEVE...
by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 18, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
HARVIN for PLayoffs
Does anyone else other than me, see the importance of Harvin, on reaching our Superbowl goal? I have not pushed the panic button but, we do need to realize how important he has been up til now. I fear that if this Migraine issue isnt resolved soon enough, this could really challange our game plan moving forward. Harvin is one of Bretts favorite targets, and a major threat on 3rd down and red zone situations…THOUGHTS ANYONE???
by PURPLEPUSSYEATER on Dec 18, 2009 11:48 AM CST reply actions
Harvin is definitely very important to the Vikings
When Harvin is in, I think you can count on 7-14 more points on the board. He’s that much of a difference-maker.
When he’s not in, the Vikings have to grind things out more, and still might get those other points but it’s going to be harder and take longer. And that means more risk to our 1st stringers.
Hopefully Harvin can find some relief for the migraine issue, it’s not just his participation from game to game. It could be his career on the line. One of the big issues in the NFL is head injuries, and honestly, Harvin worries me.
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!
Yes
That said, the Vikings have 53 MVPs right now. Can’t afford to lose anybody. Tough enough without the Henderson wrecking crew out for now.
by medicineball on Dec 18, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

by 

















