Defense wins championships; at least that’s what they say.

by NobleSavage on Dec 3, 2009 2:38 PM CST

I read a comment in an earlier post stating that the Vikings would have to improve their pass defense because at the time they were ranked 20th and as the writer proclaimed, "I don't think any Super Bowl winner has been ranked 20th or worse in pass defense."

This statement really aroused my curiosity, so of course I couldn't resist doing some on-line investigating. As some of you may know from a few of my past posts, I have a thing for statistics. The attached chart shows the data I gathered and provides a means of comparing the regular season defensive rankings of all Super Bowl participants since the NFL/AFL merger of 1970.

I'll let you have fun looking over the stats and maybe coming up with some of your own conclusions in the process. After the chart I have listed my conclusions and how they relate to the league standings as they are today.

SUPER BOWL		WINNER REG SEASON DEF RANK				LOSER REG SEASON DEF RANK				COMMENT*
YEAR	#	TEAM	TOTAL	PASS	RUSH	TEAM	TOTAL	PASS	RUSH

1971	V	BAL	9	21	6	DAL	4	3	10
1972	VI	DAL	3	19	2	MIA	5	6	8
1973	VII	MIA	1	5	3	WAS	4	6	7
1974	VIII	MIA	3	1	12	MIN	12	12	11
1975	IX	PIT	1	1	6	MIN	10	18	5
1976	X	PIT	4	4	8	DAL	5	8	4
1977	XI	OAK	18	23	10	MIN	6	1	17
1978	XII	DAL	1	2	3	DEN	9	25	10
1979	XIII	PIT	3	12	1	DAL	2	5	6
1980	XIV	PIT	2	10	4	LA *	7	9	10	Rams
1981	XV	OAK	11	19	5	PHI	2	5	2
1982	XVI	SF	2	3	12	CIN	12	22	9
1983 *	XVII	WAS	4	7	8	MIA	1	1	24	Strike year (9 lost games)
1984	XVIII	LA *	4	13	4	WAS	12	28	1	Raiders
1985	XIX	SF	10	17	7	MIA	19	14	22
1986	XX	CHI	1	3	1	NE	7	9	6
1987	XXI	NYG	2	19	1	DEN	9	16	5
1988 *	XXII	WAS	18	24	10	DEN	9	5	20	Strike year (1 lost game 3 scab games)
1989	XXIII	SF	3	8	3	CIN	15	10	18
1990	XXIV	SF	4	11	3	DEN	3	3	6
1991	XXV	NYG	2	6	4	BUF	8	7	15
1992	XXVI	WAS	3	9	3	BUF	27	21	24
1993	XXVII	DAL	1	5	1	BUF	12	20	2
1994	XXVIII	DAL	10	10	11	BUF	27	24	21
1995	XXIX	SF	8	17	2	SD	14	22	5
1996	XXX	DAL	3	6	2	PIT	2	5	3
1997	XXI	GB	1	7	1	NE	5	5	5
1998	XXXII	DEN	5	5	16	GB	7	8	20
1999	XXXIII	DEN	11	26	3	ATL	8	21	2
2000	XXXIV	STL *	6	20	1	TEN	17	25	10	Rams
2001	XXXV	BAL	2	8	1	NYG	5	16	2
2002	XXXVI	NE	24	24	19	STL *	3	11	3	Rams
2003	XXXVII	TB	1	1	5	OAK	11	23	3
2004	XXXVIII	NE	7	15	4	CAR	8	9	11
2005	XXXIX	NE	9	17	6	PHI	10	12	16
2006	XL	PIT	4	16	3	SEA	16	25	5
2007	XLI	IND	21	2	32 *	CHI	5	11	6	Last in the league
2008	XLII	NYG	7	11	8	NE	4	6	10
2009	XLIII	PIT	1	1	2	ARI	19	22	16

OK, before I delve into the meat of the data I'd like to point out a few interesting facts:

There have been 8 champions that finished the regular season 1st in total defense.
There has only been 1 loser that finished 1st in total defense.
The Washington Redskins won the Super Bowl each of the 2 years there was a strike.
Indy won Super Bowl XLI after finishing last in the league in rush defense.
There have been 6 teams that finished the regular season 20th or worse in pass defense and won the Super Bowl.

Now to get back to why we're here, does defense really win championships? First let's examine what it takes to be a participant in the Super Bowl. To make things a little easier, I have divided the teams into 3 groups and listed the results as % of all participants.

Ranking of 1-10 = good defense

Ranking of 11-19 = average defense

Ranking of 20 and worse = poor defense

Super Bowl participants:

Good total defense - 76%

Average total defense - 19%

Poor total defense - 5%

Good pass defense - 51%

Average pass defense - 26%

Poor pass defense - 23%

Good rush defense - 76%

Average rush defense - 15%

Poor rush defense - 9%

As these numbers point out, for a team to make it to the Super Bowl, it is important to have a good defense. However, it seems that it is much more important to have a good rush defense than it is a pass defense.

Super Bowl winners:

Good total defense - 85%

Average total defense - 10%

Poor total defense - 5%

Good pass defense - 54%

Average pass defense - 31%

Poor pass defense - 15%

Good rush defense - 85%

Average rush defense - 13%

Poor rush defense - 2%

Looking at these numbers it is even more evident of the importance of a good defense. Again it is also evident that a good rush defense is more important than a good pass defense.

So how does this pertain to this year, and more importantly, what does it say about the Vikings chances? If the regular season were to end today, which teams would have a greater chance of making it to the Super Bowl?

AFC Division Leaders	Tot DEF	Pass DEF	Rush DEF

NE	12 Average	10 Good	16 Average
CIN	6 Good	16 Average	3 Good
IND	15 Average	20 Poor	15 Average
SD	13 Average	8 Good	21 Poor
Wild Card
DEN	5 Good	5 Good	17 Average
JAX	21 Poor	26 Poor	10 Good

NFC Division Leaders
DAL	14 Average	21 Poor	9 Good
MIN	8 Good	19 Average	2 Good
NO	16 Average	18 Average	20 Poor
ARI	24 Poor	29 Poor	14 Average
Wild Card
GB	1 Good	6 Good	4 Good
PHI	9 Good	9 Good	8 Good

Notes:

Only 6 Super Bowl participants in the last 39 games did not rank "Good" in at least one of the defensive categories. Of these 6 only 1 went on to win the game.

This tells me that if a team does not finish in the top 10 in either total defense, pass defense, or rush defense, it is highly unlikely they will win the Super Bowl.

OK, so who can we eliminate from the list above?

IND - gone

NO - gone (are you kidding me?)

ARI - gone

Remember that it was determined that a good rush defense is important. I think we can eliminate from the remaining teams those that have less than a good rush defense.

NE - gone

SD - gone

DEN - gone

Alright, who's left?

CIN - good possibility

JAX - would definitely be a surprise

DAL - eh...alright maybe could see it

MIN - you betcha

GB - they just keep hanging around

PHI - they always seem to overachieve

Well according to my calculations, one of these teams will be the next Super Bowl champion. Boy, I'll bet you haven't seen a prediction like that? The one good thing about this list is that only 2 of the teams really fit in the picture.

The Vikings and the Bengals in the Super Bowl!

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.

Tweet Comment 50 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

awesome work

and a wonderful read. I’m a stat-lover myself, so this is great.

rec’d

If you can't laugh at yourself... Who can you laugh at?
The Packers, that’s who.
-- The almighty Manimal

by TheViking83 on Dec 3, 2009 3:22 PM CST reply actions

also

it would be interesting to see the offensive side of this as well. Did all of those SB teams with below average defenses have INCREDIBLE offenses? Were there some flukes in there? Is there any correlation between O and D? Hmmm… perhaps I’ll get to work now NS.

If you can't laugh at yourself... Who can you laugh at?
The Packers, that’s who.
-- The almighty Manimal

by TheViking83 on Dec 3, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions

now go back and compare

what the turnover ratio is on those games,I bet those great run Ds caused more turnovers,then compare the win lose ratio then see where NO stands in that catgorie,anyone can canstrew a statistics how they want.go back and look at who won the turnover battle and I bet 80% of those won.We excel on turnovers and defesive TDs by far.Also go back and look at how many QBs won a NFC champ or Super Bowl with a 55%
passer rateing because no one has gotten better than that on us.I bet thats a 0%, weve faced some of the best Pass OLs in the game.Giants,Falcs,Pats,why would you think Farves would be deferent. theres alot of variables that your not including in that yards allowed scenarios.Plus we where rank 4th in rush D before we lost Ellis and Fujita,while at the same time going up against the 4 of the 5 best run teams in the NFL in a row three comeing off byes weeks, so very deciveing.We probaly end up around the 8-9 rush and pass D by the end of the year because of the ease of our remaing games.plus in the second half of games we only allow about an avarage of 30 yards on the ground,so we can give a team 150 yards 3 turnovers a game and still beat them by 10 points in their house comeing off a bye.

CAN YOU?

by darshiva420 on Dec 5, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions

Let's see....

Time wil tell…..

Be ready!

Only advice I can give ya!

Vikes are hungry and focused…

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 5, 2009 9:44 AM CST up reply actions

plus if your go back 15 years

witch is far back as want to research OFF wins games going from from 08 and down (use the list above) to see the teams its as follows.

W- L OFF

08 22-4
07 16-1
06 3-15
05 7-19
04 7-13
03 10-25
02 21-13
01 14-9
00 1-14
99 14-27
98 3-5
97 4-15
96 15-24
95 2-16
94 8-10

10-5 ratio what youll fell to mention is the better OFF wins more time than the Ds do

by darshiva420 on Dec 5, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions

That's why they play the game!

I piss people off on a fairly regular basis. I cherish my right to speak my mind, whether I sound like an uneducated savage or not. I've never been accused of keeping what I think a secret, nor will I ever. Don't like it? I don't care.

by IABerserker1 on Dec 5, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions

darshiva420

I don’t need to. You are correct about statistics. They are merely for a point of discussion. I don’t put much stock in them and I’ll tell you why.

Favre came into camp late. At the start of the season he was not used to or comfortable with his receivers. He was tentative, took too many sacks and wouldn’t throw downfield. Due to this fact, The Vikings did not dominate Cleveland, Detroit, etc… in the manner that they should have. The offense did not control the clock enough and the defense spent more time on the field than they should have. The Vikings offense did not even "begin" to hit their stride until week seven. This skews the stats a great deal, for the offense and defense for the entire season.

The Vikings have also brought in their second string quarter and other back ups as early as the third quarter. Do you think this might also have an effect on stats? How much time has your back up quarterback played this year? I’m merely curious about the last question, as I honestly don’t know the answer.

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

by cryhavoc on Dec 5, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions

or entire D

with over half our secondary being new took on one of the most diffacult systems in football all in one off season.our QBs played every game but weve had 6 games now with at least 5 or more starters out in our D gave up 13 turnovers in four games allowed over 135 rushing in each of those games and still wonWe dont have starters on out team our entire 1st and 2nd string play intricuatly in the games

by darshiva420 on Dec 5, 2009 1:25 PM CST up reply actions

We've been missing...

our best corner for five weeks now and Percy Harvin has had to learn the slot receiver position as well. He has improved every week. Bernard Berrian has has hamstring issues and has not done much to date. Although, it appears that he’s starting to come around.
Top that off with essentially two rookie O lineman (one is a second year player but at the hardest line position to learn, Center. He has to read the defense and make the line calls).How much do you think he played backing up Matt Burke last year. They both made a lot of mistakes in the first few games.
A lucky break here, a bad bounce there, or a blown call can cost a team a game. Or allow them to win it. Sometimes teams go through hot or cold streaks or have a bad game at the wrong time. That’s why you have to play the entire season.
To end with a cliche. “Never count your chickens before they hatch”.

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

by cryhavoc on Dec 5, 2009 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

There's really no sense in responding to HOMER420

I’ve read his post’s over at Canal Street, he’s got the Saints going to Miami and absolutely killing whoever they meet. Nobody stands a chance. (even though there’s still 5wks of reg-season football before the playoffs even start)

We Vikings fans have had so many winning season’s and playoff appearances in our history, that we know ANYTHING can happen in the playoffs. Injury’s, missed FG’s, bs-penalties, or just horrible play from the team.
I’m gonna end with a cliche for darshiva420 as well. “Any Given Sunday”

by chaosg on Dec 5, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions

I was well aware...

of his/her posts on Canal Street and crafted my responses accordingly. He/she has posted in a civil manner here, so far. As long as that continues I have no issues that need to be addressed…

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

by cryhavoc on Dec 5, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

+ eleventy

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 5, 2009 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

Very Interesting Post

Really a lot of work and we all have heard the old adage defense wins games….to see it here all laid out is pretty cool….

Think someone else mentioned intangibles…..these play a part of any game of course, but your effort here and the stats show indeed that D is sooooo important….

We have our base covered on this one lol! I wonder now how tough that game will be against Cinci…..

We do have a few tough games yet, starting with the Cards on Sunday….real tests for our D and also a chance for AD to work on his speed (on the field, not in the road lol!)…

Thanks and SKOL!

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 3, 2009 3:43 PM CST reply actions

Who was #1 in rush D this year?

I saw we are #2, and I’m hoping we overtake it again – it’s a GREAT stat line…

by mjmrad on Dec 3, 2009 4:55 PM CST reply actions

Pittsburgh

currently sits at the top in rushing yards allowed. Cincinnati is just behind us in third. The Vikes have done really well the last 2 weeks stopping the run.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Dec 4, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

Wow I have a mini show and I don't go into stats like this

GREAT JOB !

Why Do People Question The Vikings' Status?

by UnBannedVikingholic on Dec 3, 2009 5:52 PM CST reply actions

Well that pretty much wraps it up then.

I guess I’ll see you ya’ in Miami. :)

by chaosg on Dec 3, 2009 6:00 PM CST reply actions

damn typo's

you know what I mean :)

by chaosg on Dec 3, 2009 6:01 PM CST up reply actions

Aside from the Good, Average and Poor thresholds being completely arbitrary (19 good, 20 poor?). The numbers speak for themselves, a cursory look would tell you the better total defense wins about 70%, but that being the top ranked defense doesn’t guarantee anything. But to the larger point, its an old NFL maxim that if you can run the ball and stop the run, you’ll be in good position to win a fair amount of games.

by LoveHate on Dec 3, 2009 6:25 PM CST reply actions

19 is average, not good

If you can't laugh at yourself... Who can you laugh at?
The Packers, that’s who.
-- The almighty Manimal

by TheViking83 on Dec 3, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions

Thank you for pointing that out...

You probably understand the broader point, er, probably not.

by LoveHate on Dec 3, 2009 7:28 PM CST up reply actions

touchy much?

eye roll

If you can't laugh at yourself... Who can you laugh at?
The Packers, that’s who.
-- The almighty Manimal

by TheViking83 on Dec 4, 2009 9:31 AM CST up reply actions

Not at all...

But, error aside, did you have a comment regarding whether having three catagories, in which one can be average at 19 and poor at 20 makes any sense in determining a teams strengths?

If not, then big eye roll back at cha grammer cop.

by LoveHate on Dec 4, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions

I guess

provided you have a top 5 run defense a passing defense of 19 or 20 means you have a pretty good defense.

I would break it down into categories of 8. Top 8 are very good, second 8 are pretty good, next 8 are okay/subpar and the final 8 are bad.

by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 4, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

The author admits its not perfect...

No doubt the Vikings are good. Their pass defense rank doesn’t tell the whole story. Despite missing Winfield, the pass defense has not been exposed. Besides, it has to be said that if teams can’t run against you they have to do something, the passing numbers are going to be inflated.

by LoveHate on Dec 4, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions

It has now...

A LOT.

by Grime on Dec 7, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions

Of course

labeling the 19th ranked defense as average and the 20th as poor may not make sense but as my post stated, I wrote it because someone had made the comment that no team ranked 20th or worse had ever won the SB.

The point of the post was simply to provide the data so everyone could come up with their own conclusions to support the statement that “defense wins championships”.

I think I did this by concluding that only 1 team in the last 39 SB’s has won that did not have a top 10 defense in at least one of the 3 categories.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Dec 5, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

because both...

indicate you are controlling the Line of Scrimmage. That’s where it starts and ends.

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Dec 3, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions

Great Post

Very well done – good work! Thanks for putting in the effort.

GO VIKES!!!!!!!

by JasonAve6413 on Dec 3, 2009 8:45 PM CST reply actions

Nice effort

Thanks for putting in all that work.

by lifelongvike on Dec 4, 2009 9:30 AM CST reply actions

I think the guys at Football Outsiders should hire you!

by Eric J. Thompson on Dec 4, 2009 10:13 AM CST reply actions

Aikman Rankings

Does anyone know where to find up to date Aikman ratings?

For you stat lovers: What are the variables that are included in the Aikman ratings and do you think this is a better measuring stick for offenses and defenses compared to total yards which I believe is the only factor currently used to measure ranks?

by Spartan99 on Dec 4, 2009 12:36 PM CST reply actions

Interesting Statistical Fact

Since 1971, the team that has had the better run defense ranking has won the superbowl matchup 74% of the time, while the team with the better overall defense has won 69% of the time.

The Team which either had the better overall defensive ranking or the better run defense ranking has won 90% of the time.

Right now, the only team with a better run defense than the vikes is the Steelers and the only teams with better total defenses than MN are Jets, Packers, Steelers, Giants, Broncos, Bengals and Redskins.

Only four of those will even likely be in the playoffs (Packers, Steelers, Broncos and Bengals). I have a feeling that the Chargers maybe able to represent the AFC as they look to be coming on strong. And I feel pretty good about either us not having to play the packers again or us beating them yet again. Allen just really gets up for those games.

So, if the vikes get to the superbowl, they have a pretty good likelihood of winning. There are a lot of ifs in this theory and one injury can severely impact any teams play, but it does make me feel pretty confident about our team’s ability if given the opportunity.

by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 4, 2009 1:02 PM CST reply actions

to clarify

if your team has the better run defense or if you don’t at least have the better overall defense you win 90% of the time.

by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 4, 2009 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

The only years that the

team that had either the better run defense, of if not at least had the better overall defense lost were the 1981 SB with Oakland over Philly, the 1999 SB with Denver over Atlanta, 2002 SB with NE over St Louis and 2007 with Indy over Chicago.

Please note that the years would be the year the game is actually played….not the season.

by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 4, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions

Ironically

all of these victories coincided with great QB stories.

1981 – Jim Plunket’s great revival from Heisman and ROY to being waived…to winning the SB.
1999 – John Elway going out on top.
2002 – The birth of Tom Brady the legend (or future legend)
2007 – The validation of Peyton Manning.

by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 4, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions

Interesting

and thanks for pointing out that the years provided in the chart were the years the SB was played. Sorry if this caused any confusion.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Dec 5, 2009 9:59 AM CST up reply actions

What does the Offense have to do with it.

I think back to the “greatest show on earth” and wonder if there is any statistical measure of how a great defense coupled with a poor offense (Ravens) or a great offense coupled with an average defense (St.Louis) works out. In other words would the fact that the Vikes have both a good offense and defense rate them higher than other teams?

by lifelongvike on Dec 4, 2009 2:45 PM CST reply actions

It would seem to?

Interesting that we have three QBs having great years….Favre, Manning, and Brees….

The X factor here may be which of the two QB can overcome their less than stellar/statistically requisite defenses to get a W?

In NO case, they would have to beat these statistics twice, first in the NFC Championship game, then again in the SB….

That may be made easier if their opponent WAS Indy, since they too are not at the statistical standard….

For the Vikings, I can only think it would help our chances statistically….We have Favre that is having a record-setting year, AND a good run defense and adequate secondary defense…

For the moment though, the focus is still Sunday night…Silver has them winning….He does not give up on his disbelief in the Vikes no matter how we have performed, and hoping that GB gets back into it!

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 4, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

Does that make Farve the "silver bullet"?

by lifelongvike on Dec 5, 2009 8:06 AM CST up reply actions

LOL

I hope so!

Nice play on words….

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 5, 2009 8:15 AM CST up reply actions

Why didn’t you do a regression? OLS would have worked, a two-step LS would have too.

by RipHimToShreds on Dec 5, 2009 3:43 PM CST reply actions

You give me too much credit

in my math prowess. While I enjoy examining statistics, my knowledge formulating OLS regression analyses is much too weak.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Dec 5, 2009 6:35 PM CST reply actions

Holy Schmoley

All greek to me! Just tell me if we’re goiing to win!

SKOL!

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 5, 2009 8:46 PM CST up reply actions

Greek Heck!

Its Hieroglyphics to me, what in the "Blue Blazes is OLS regression? Maybe someone could explain it to us lay people.

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

by cryhavoc on Dec 5, 2009 10:18 PM CST up reply actions

It's teh slope of a function

Well that’s completely wrong and right at the same time. It’s working out numerical relationships. Which once again means nothing.. Crap.. It’s seeking to know what could happen based on what has happened. You take what has happened formulate it then use that formula to derive what could happen based on some knowledge that you have. Sort of like algebra but for stats.

I have now completly confused myself and I actually do these things… Craptastic.

by Grime on Dec 7, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

Ha Ha,

serves you right.

"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

by cryhavoc on Dec 7, 2009 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

wow

I was a little surprised. These stats are based on the regular season, so a team getting hot going into the playoffs may does not really factor in. It is only a reflextion of how well then consistantly played in relation to the result of the SB. I wonder if just the play off numbers were tallied and compared, would the result be the same. My feeling is yes, or the results would not be as there were.

cool post

it is better to be thought of as dumb then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Ben Franklin

by montana vikes fan on Dec 6, 2009 1:10 AM CST reply actions

Turnovers

Although I’m a believer in winning the turnover battle, you cannot base your defensive strategy on that.

There’s always that chance that you run into a team that doesn’t turn the ball over much. If you can’t stop them with a solid defense and aren’t getting the turnovers, then what?

The Vikings are playing solid defense right now and I’ll take a solid defense. A solid defense gives you a better chance of winning the turnover battle, plus the ability to stop the opposing offense if need be.

We can score with the best of them, and we have the defense best capable of stopping an opposing offense out there. The Vikings are a dangerous team right now, as long as they can keep their focus.

The Minnesota Vikings - Undefeated in the Playoffs at Lambeau Field!

by BaldViking on Dec 6, 2009 5:08 PM CST reply actions

Very nicely done

Thanks for putting in the effort to bring this to us, Noble Savage. It may not satisfy everyone’s notion of perfect statistical analysis, but it gives us a good understanding of the point being made. :)

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 Dec 7, 2009 8:33 AM CST reply actions