Vikings 2009 record part 3
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Jun 17, 2009 3:55 AM CDT
31 comments
So a few days ago, I asked you what you thought the Vikings record would be with Tarvaris or Sage leading the team. Most of you chose 11 wins (38%). More accurately, after 138 votes, the average win prediction came out to be 10.74.
A couple days after I asked the first question, I proposed another question to you all. What would the Vikings record be with Brett Favre at the helm? 44% of you chose 12 wins, with the average coming out to be 11.97 wins (132 votes).
It really wasn't a shocker to learn that most of you thought Brett Favre would increase the Vikings win percentage for next season. I was really trying to find out what you thought the increase would be. Based off the winning number from each poll, most of you think Brett Favre would equal one more win for the purple and gold. Based off the percentages, it's actually more of a 1.23 victory improvement.
Just today, ESPN (or BSPN as it is now known) teamed up with Accuscore to do basically the same thing. Except Accuscore ran computer simulations 10,000 times using hundreds of variables. Here is the link. Check it out for yourself. If you don't want to read it all, basically it says that without Favre, Minnesota, Chicago and Green Bay all tie for the division lead with 9 wins. With Brett Favre, the Vikings win the division with 10 wins.
Here is my question for you all. Assuming that we are all correct, and that Brett Favre gets us 1 more win..... is that enough of a reason to bring him in for 1 year? Could he break down towards the end of the season? Who knows. Could he win us a Superbowl? Who knows. Will he hurt or help the progression of Tarvaris Jackson? Who knows. Just based off the fact that he will get us 1 more win, and possibly help us secure the division again, is it worth bringing him in? You have all the facts. Now it's your turn to play GM.
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 |
31 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Favre
I think the difference is that with favre i doubt the floor would be below 9-7 or 10-6 with tavaris or sage, they could break down and the floor could be 8-8 or 7-9, i know favre could hurt his arm again but a healthy favre the ceiling could be 13-3
the beat i see the team doin with tavaris or sage is 11-5
by YanksVikes on Jun 17, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
something i don't understand
this has been a great series of posts ppe09. but what’s going on? last year we were 10-6 right? we lost ej henderson early in the season, we lost out best special teams player in pre season. we lost our third corner late in the season. we had gus for qb most of the season. and still we went 10-6.
this year, we get our injured players back. gus has been exchanged for sage. we lost sharper and birk for our only big (if you want to call them big) losses. we gained what will hopefully be a long time starter on the oline and what will hopefully be an explosive playmaker in harvin. add to that all the free agents and draft picks we signed which i feel were signed expressly to address our special teams problems. add to all of that the fact that our schedule is (relatively speaking) easier this year and still most people think we’ll only be 1 game better than last year? forget about the favre thing for minute and look at just what we have on the roster right now.
i know it’s hard to win in the nfl. but look at what we did last year. if we go 10-6 again i will consider it a real disappointment (anything less would be a disaster). i would think we underachieved a bit even at 11-5.
are sullivan, johnson and sage that big of a downgrade from birk, sharper, and gus? or am i being overly optimistic? i’m not touting 16-0 by any means but i would think we’ve improved more than one game and judging by most people’s comments it would seem most people agree, especially those on the favre bandwagon.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 17, 2009 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You are so right.
We are a more improved team from last year. I feel the one area that needed the most improvement was the special teams, and they have done that. The shame of this whole Favre scenario is that if we improve our record with Favre at the helm, you know who will get the credit? If Favre does play for the Vikes this year, it is Super Bowl victors or bust in my opinion. We are already a division contender .
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Jun 17, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree iseepurplepeople
That was my goal with these series of posts. I wanted to see what the majority of Vikings fans felt about our chances this season. Personally, I feel that even without Favre, the Vikings should be able to win 2 more games (barring injury). The main purpose of the first 2 posts was to get the opinion of the masses, so I could write the 3rd installment with some facts to look at.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Jun 17, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geeze, don’t do that. Don’t say “Ugh we need to win 10 games or I’m going to be very upset!” because you never know what’s going to happen in the league. Those powder puff teams I know you’re assuming victory over, they could end up having an amazing day. Or maybe their first round pick ends up being a game-buster. There’s just too many unknowns right now to assume we will automatically get at least 10 wins, so don’t set yourself up for disappointment.
by Frost on Jun 18, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
can't help it
i think we have a really really good team. i don’t care who we play week in and week out i think we have a better than 50% chance to win each and every game this year. like i said tho i’m not touting 16-0 but i feel this years team is better than last years team (regardless of the qb) and i would be disappointed if we end up 10-6 again with the talent and continuity we have.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 18, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good post
I agree. Not having Henderson killed you guys (your not gonna get me on your 3rd string cb though haha). Having him back will help your run d tremedousely which is already the best in the league. I don’t think sullivan, johnson, and sage are a big downgrade, but it still is a downgrade, at least initially.
Sullivan needs to learn a lot of different things as the center. Birk physically might have been declining, but not mentally. So I think at least initially sullivan will be a downgrade. Johnson is a young player, who seems to have the potential to be a good one. There is a lot he has to learn also. He has struggled with not letting any receivers get behind him, but I’m sure he will learn from that. But again I think initially he will be a downgrade. I think Sage is an upgrade from Gus.
I see what your saying and I understand it. I don’t think Sullivan and Johnson will have that big of an effect on your record, or at least not even close to the same effect the QB play will. I think the reason people are saying you’ll have 10-12 wins is because of your situation at QB. The bottom line is as of right now, the changes you have made at QB are only a minimal upgrade. I think if Favre comes and he stays healthy and all that then you guys could be a 13-14 win team. I just think it will come down to your QB and how well they play.
by packallday555 on Jun 21, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
good answer! thanks!
(and he’s our 1st string dime back!)
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 22, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That differential makes me cringe.
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on Jun 17, 2009 2:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
1 win r u joking of course
any one agree with me 1 win is oviously alot i mean look at the pats they where 11 5 and where they in the playoffs no 1 more win and who knows who whould of won the superbowl
by vikings28 on Jun 17, 2009 2:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
that was a fluke. theoretically a team could go 13-3 and still not make the playoffs.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 17, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s got a point though. One win could mean the difference between home-field in the Playoffs or a WC spot.
by Frost on Jun 18, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take one more win any way I can get it.
And if you could somehow guarantee me an extra win by bringing in the F-word, it would help me deal with this mess much better.
by ericj69 on Jun 17, 2009 2:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Favre could get us one more win
and our improved special teams 2 more wins. I can account for 2 games that were lost because of poor special teams play. TD’s happen on special teams, but 7?. thats 49 points GIVEN to the opponent. It was the biggest reason we were losing games early in the year. Special teams has been addressed, and if it can be held to 2 or 3 and fewer on the year, i see 2 of those close games with our running game on the win column. Brett Favre can win games when teams choose to stop the run with extra men in the box.
SKOL VIKES
by PurpleJesuZ on Jun 17, 2009 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Those two games last year would have made the Vikings 12-4 and with wins over both Carolina and NY, would have made the Vikings the #1 seed and have home field throughout the playoffs. For all the hate for the play of Freotte and Jackson, the Vikings could have been the #1 seed in the NFC if the special teams allowed 3 less special teams touchdowns (1 @GB and the 2 @ Chicago). They still would have allowed 4 TDs overall, which is still horrendous, but the others weren’t deciding factors like those 3.
And if the Vikings can accomplish all that simply by having their special teams play up to the median of NFL standards, why bring in Farve for that one more, unnecessary win? Only one team last year had a record better than 12-4 (4 teams had 12-4 records), the 13-3 Titans, who lost in their first playoff game. The notion that defenses will suddenly play soft because Favre is the QB is wishful thinking. There isn’t a team out there that wouldn’t try to put Brett on his back and keep him from having time to throw the ball. The Vikings line is already going to be starting with two new players and you know that isn’t going to give teams pause as they will try to expose them for their lack of inexperience and get after the QB, whoever it is. Teams will continue to be as aggressive at stopping the pass as they are the run and Favre isn’t changing that.
I mentioned the Titans and I think they are a pretty good example of what the Vikings will look like next year. Powerful running tandem, dominate D, and ancient QB in a competitive division. No team softened up when going against Collins and his big running attack and Collins, who is 4 years younger than Brett, struggled down the stretch and in their playoff loss.
I am not so naive to think that Farve isn’t a virtual lock to play for the Vikings, I just don’t understand the reasoning people use to justify it. Favre is no guarantee to win or even get to the Super Bowl, let alone a playoff win. I just don’t see how that one extra win when you get to that level of wins makes any difference. Hell, the Patriots won all of their regular season games two years ago, but that didn’t get them a SB title. The Vikings are a great team without Brett, why mess with that for that little of a return? I see a much greater return on seeing if Jackson can once and for all start a full season and play on the same level he played at at the end of last season. If he can, great. If he can’t, Sage can take them to the playoffs as well and has as good a chance to win there as Favre and the Vikings can get a QB early in a draft projected to be great for QBs. With Farve, the development of the QB position goes stagnant for a year and the Vikings are right were they are now next year.
by vikingfuture8816 on Jun 17, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, Collins didn’t struggle in the playoff loss at all. He was doing pretty damn good, but the recievers kept coughing up the ball and Baltimore was recovering them, and it just killed all of his momentum. There was really nothing much he could do more to try and help that team win than what he did.
Sure, the Vikings possibly could reach the playoffs without Favre. But what about during the playoffs? Do you really want to stick Jackson in there again? Personally, I’d rather we have Favre, simply because he CAN read the defense pre-snap. I like Jackson, and I’ve defended him on many occasions, but you’ve gotta admit that he seems to have trouble reading the defense. If Favre is rested well enough, we shouldn’t have to worry about him throwing interceptions either, because Peterson is this team’s workhorse. Not Favre. He wouldn’t have to try and force things.
by Frost on Jun 18, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never in his career has Favre had to try and force things, but he did any ways because that is the type of player he is. He knows he can get away with it from time to time. Just because he has Peterson as his RB doesn’t means he is now going to be a different kind of player. Sure Jackson has some trouble right now (maybe forever) with reading a defense pre-snap (something no QB is 100% at, especially for a guy who has yet to play a full season), even though Favre can, how well has he done in his last few playoff appearances? For all his ability to read defenses pre-snap he has thrown picks to send his team home in the playoffs that last five times he got them in (2007, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001). Then on top of that, it all works out, as you put it, “if” he is rested and healthy enough. How did that work out for the 37 year old, non surgically repaired QB that started most of last year? He spent a lot of time on the ground in pain and had to be taken out before the end of the season. And that was with an o-line that had been playing together for the past 2 years. Now the “if” rests on a 40 year old, with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder being protected with two new members on the line with no NFL starting experience.
As for Collins, after going 10-0 and throwing 8 TDs to 4 INTs with a 63% completion percentage. The last 6 games, the Titans went 3-3, throwing 4 TDs to 3 INTs and a 56% completion percentage. I would call that struggling at the end of the season. I never said the Titans lost because of Collins, but at the end of the game he didn’t drive his team down the field and score a winning touchdown or at least send the game into overtime. Something which some people here condemn Jackson and the Vikings in general for and yet, despite plenty of evidence against it, think Favre will be able to do this year for the Vikings.
by vikingfuture8816 on Jun 18, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+10
You nailed it on the head. You guys could win the division again and be very good but when it comes to the playoffs, Jackson is NOT going to be able to get it done. He has been in the league for 3 years now, and he still cannot read coverage and blitzes. I know a lot of you will try to argue it, but just look at how he has done against good defensive teams. Example: Eagles last year.
by packallday555 on Jun 21, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
great point Pack
I seemto like you already Packman I’ve been on the other 3 sites reading your posts specically and you are very level headed, I hope to battle witts with you on the “pride of Detroit” soon you seem to fit in on all 3 of your teams opponents sites very well and I am trying to do the same. I don’t feel that Favre will get these Vikes to 13 wins thou as I stated on a different post we have all watched Favre struggle in domes for his entire career so I still don’t understand why these viking fans want him so badly especially when he IS going to want to throw the ball all over the field and that is going to take away touches from the real threat on this team and thats AP. Now if Childress can coral him and make favre only throw the ball when he needs to, it’ll b a whole different story but I think Favre’s ego is to big for that.
by davis0169 on Jun 28, 2009 2:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
This isn’t the same division that he was chased out of 2 years ago either, acording to your friend over in the gridiron “windycity72” and “dickavstheworld” the Bears are the team to beat this year cause they have a piece os Cutlery now. . .hopefully they know how to use forks and knives in Chicago. The Pack have not missed a step with the replacement of Favre to Rodgers either and . . . Don’t laugh guys . . . . .but My Lions are going to catch alot of you off guard, we have an entirely new D-fence and a ready to show the world Cullpizzle who not only has Lineham but a REC that has the same make-up that he had with Moss. Just saying that 13 wins is a real streatch for any team in our division, especially when we have to play the AFC North this year, the Ravens and Steelers are not going to be eazy wins for anyone in our division and then you have the likes of Arizona and Carolina on the road wow. If I was a Viking fans would think 10 wins would be a great year cause no one in our division is going to sweep threw it.
by davis0169 on Jun 28, 2009 2:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+2
Good posts. Great point about Favre taking away touches from AP, I haven’t really even thought about that. It could end up being very true though. It will depend on Childress and his loyalty to AP. He also could open the run game up even more, like he did with the Jets and Thomas/Washington. (Which would be very scary for the rest of our teams.)
I am not going to underestimate your Lions. You guys really have made BIG improvements on D. Peterson, Sims, Farrior is a very, very good LBing core. Plus, the pickup of Jackson, Buchanon, and Smith. Your D will be much improved. The offense has the players at the skill positions (QB is still kind of a question though), it will just come down to how your o-line plays. I don’t think the Bears are the team to beat, it’s still the Vikes. The Bears got Cutler and got upgrades on the o-line but that D just hasn’t been itself the past 2 years, and if they want to win the division it will have to become the D of old. This year is going to be very interesting.
by packallday555 on Jun 29, 2009 3:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playoff wins are all that really matter
I am pretty confident that the Vikings will reach the playoffs in 2009 with Jackson, Rosenfels, or Favre as their QB. The only reason to bring in Favre though, IMO, is for him to advance the Vikings in the playoffs. I’m not even saying that Jackson or Rosenfels couldn’t lead the Vikings to a playoff win (or more than one). But if Favre can’t win in the playoffs, how is this team really any better off? Oh yeah, they’ll sell out every game, they’ll possibly look prettier winning the games they do win, they’ll definitely get loads of national media attention. But unless the Vikings get further in the playoffs than they did last season, all Favre is really doing is delaying the development of the Vikings future starting QB (and no, I don’t mean Booty).
by purplepat on Jun 17, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Division winner = playoffs= who knows
It’s worth it. A no-brainer to me, if you beleive the data. Now, whether you should beleive the data is a totally different question and definitely debateable.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jun 17, 2009 6:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Super Bowl
If that’s the “1 more win”, then yep, it’s worth it.
If it’s anything less than that, then no, it’s not worth it.
I know the Vikes need to drum up support to get that stadium, and I know Favre brings interest to the equation… but I don’t think it’s enough. I don’t think anything will be enough except going all the way, or a huge “Metrodome Next” project that’s made contingent on the Vikes remaining in Minny.
by DCPurple on Jun 18, 2009 8:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
1 win at that level of wins
Great posts by the way. But one extra win can go a long way when your around 11 or 12. Thats flirting with a first round bye. Which would automatically put us into the 2nd round, which we havn’t done since???the year we beat Green Bay with Moss’s Moon. Yes, there are no guarantees Favre will even be more productive to get us an extra win as opposed to our current QB’s. I think Favre will be sacked a hell of alot less then last years QB’s. 43 sacks given up to Favres 30 in N.Y. He only had 19 the previous year in G.B. He gets rid of the ball Quick. He knows where his recievers are supposed to be. there are still 2 pro-bowl caliber linemen, a HUGE upgrade at right tackle, even if its just in its purest form. You can’t deny us finishing in the top 5 in rushing the past 3 years some credit to a solid line. We still have Kleinsasser IMO the best blocking tight end/should be fullback.
The possibilities this offense has are numerous. Alot will come down to how Childress uses it. Skol.
by PurpleJesuZ on Jun 19, 2009 10:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the props
I agree with you. If we were 6-10, and could bring in a QB who would take us to 7-9, no way we do that. If we go from 10-6 to 11-5, or even 12-4, that is definitely worth it.
Also agree with the Kleinsasser comment! He would be a beast at FB. Why not use him there more? Just ludicrous.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Jun 19, 2009 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes Kleinsasser
I think his problem is its difficult to get him on the field alot. As a tight end, we would have to go double tight just to get him in the game, as shincaoe is our recieving threat. Its even more detrimental when we have a fullback in the game as well, thus taking a play-maker off the field. We should see more one tight end (Shincaoe) and A fullback in kleinsasser. I love the smashmouth football (2 tight I formation 1 split wide) but your leaving a Harvin or a Rice/Wade on the sideline. Kleinsasser needs to be on the field as much as possible, whether its a formation using him as a FB or as A TE. Its almost obvious when him and Tahi come in what to expect. I’m rambling about silly stuff, but i’m sure Childress will open up that play-book so that his best players are on the field as much as possible.
Good thing we aren’t talking about the defense, because I’d never shut up.
SKOL.
by PurpleJesuZ on Jun 19, 2009 10:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
