Statistical Comparison: 2012 Vikes vs 4 Super Bowl Winners

[CalVike]

After studying the stats, the 2012 Vikings are a positive team on the offensive side as shown below. Ponder is in no way destroying our offensive success overall. In the stats that follow, 2012 Vikes are through 15 games while others are 16 games. Clearly, the Vikings defense is not as good as 2003 Bucs or 2000 Ravens, but the points scored on offensive TDs compares favorably to those teams. Considering our running game, our total yards on offensive is not too far out of whack. The QB position could be far better but to call it completely ineffective is totally inaccurate. Stats follow for:

2012 Vikes (15 games)
2011 Giants
2010 Packers
2003 Bucs
2000 Ravens

These stats are regular season only NOT playoffs. I will include several different categories in separate posts.

Edit: Our schedule was NOT an easy schedule compared to these other teams.
Edit: Stats updated on Dec. 30 to include final regular season game vs Packers for 2012 Vikings

[CalVike]

Offensive TD Drives and Field Goals Attempted, indicators of how often the team scores or is in position to score.
Edit: Now includes Game 16 vs Packers.

[CalVike]

Passing TDs, Total Offensive TDs, and Interceptions.
Edit: Now includes Game 16 vs Packers

[CalVike]

Points Scored (for) and Allowed (Against)
Edit: Now includes Game 16 vs Packers

[CalVike]

First Downs, Completions, and Completion Percentage
Edit: Includes Game 16 vs Packers

[CalVike]

Passing Yards, Rushing Yards, and Total Yards
Update: Now includes Game 16 vs Packers

[CalVike]

Opponent's winning percentage at time of game and
Edit: Final Winning Percentage
Edit: Now includes Game 16 vs Packers

[Crax]

Clearly, the Vikings defense is not as good as 2003 Bucs or 2000 Ravens, but the points scored on offensive TDs compares favorably to those teams.

So the offensive output compares favorably to two teams that won a decade+ ago when defenses were tougher? Scoring as a whole was lower in those years . I've already said I personally don't believe you can win with that model these days, so I won't go into it again.

[CalVike]

So the offensive output compares favorably to two teams that won a decade+ ago when defenses were tougher? Scoring as a whole was lower in those years . I've already said I personally don't believe you can win with that model these days, so I won't go into it again.

I understand your point of view. I do not share it. As fiestavike said innovation is key and our offense has been keeping good teams off balance. AD makes us different. Another point is the 2011 Giants and 2010 Packers were flawed teams, they played some stinkers just like us. It is far too simplistic to say a team like the 2012 Vikes, built on running, defense, and high percentage passing cannot win it all because they don't pass well enough. They don't have to be good, just good enough. And they just might be the team peaking at the right time, with solid coaching. My opinions only, flame away!

[Just Me]

I understand your point of view. I do not share it. As fiestavike said innovation is key and our offense has been keeping good teams off balance. AD makes us different. Another point is the 2011 Giants and 2010 Packers were flawed teams, they played some stinkers just like us. It is far too simplistic to say a team like the 2012 Vikes, built on running, defense, and high percentage passing cannot win it all because they don't pass we'll enough. They don't have to be good, just good enough. And they just might be the team peaking at the right time, with solid coaching. My opinions only, flame away!

No flaming. I hope there is some merit to that view. My concern is that two of the greatests defenses to ever play the game won the Super Bowl when their respective offenses were only slightly worse than the Vikings offense is this year. Our defense is good, but not to the level those Buccaneer or Raven's squads were.

[mansquatch]

Interesting that once we reach a 16 game season it is likely we'll only be about 600 yards behind the Packers and maybe 800 yards behind the Giants. Over 16 games that is ~50 yards a game of offense.

I know yardage isn't everything, but it beg the question of the efficacy of complaining about Ponder's passing yardage and being indicative of overall team success. Obviously you want more than 100 yards of passing from your QB, but do you need more than 200? I would suggest that when your identity is power rushing as it is with the Vikings you probably do not.

The Opponent winning % is also a great stat that says alot about this team. Given their record in the 2nd half of the season you cannot really say this team massaged it's wins in the first 6 weeks.

Frankly, this team should have 2-3 more wins and arguably be a #2 seed. (still lamenting the two horrible road losses at SEA and GB...) That can be blamed on Ponder, but that isn't the point. Whether you think they can win with this model or not is irrelevant. They ARE winning with this model and they are beating contenders, not just pretenders.

We could go down in flames on Sunday but if we get into the post season there is not a team between us and the Superbowl that we are not capable of beating. I'd say the Vikings are the team nobody wants to play right now.

[CalVike]

No flaming. I hope there is some merit to that view. My concern is that two of the greatests defenses to ever play the game won the Super Bowl when their respective offenses were only slightly worse than the Vikings offense is this year. Our defense is good, but not to the level those Buccaneer or Raven's squads were.

This is a great point. I agree that the defense is not there yet. They were inconsistent at times this season, allowing far too many third down conversions and points in certain games. They have played better recently. It is a remarkable improvement given the pass defense was dead last in 2011. The model can work, the Vikings do not have all the pieces in place yet both defensively and at QB (neither Dilfer or Brad Johnson did much after their Super Bowl run for their Super Bowl teams) and WR including the Harvin question discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. It will be interesting how they approach 2013. For now, it is fun to watch the 2012 Vikings exceed expectations in every conceivable way.

[Crax]

Whether you think they can win with this model or not is irrelevant. They ARE winning with this model and they are beating contenders, not just pretenders.

They ARE winning REGULAR SEASON games with this model. I never said you couldn't win games, my argument was you can't get through the playoffs and win a superbowl with that model any longer. It'll be 10 years since the Bucs did it when this season is done. I'll 100% admit to being wrong if the Vikings go through the playoffs and win the superbowl, in fact I'd love to be wrong.

[CalVike]

Let's step back a bit. The Vikings are not in the playoffs, yet. How can we even think about the superbowl? The only team that needs to worry about the Vikings right now are the Packers. I really don't think anyone else is losing sleep over the Vikings right now.

The Vikings themselves ARE laser focused on one objective, beating the Packers on Sunday. As fans, we have freedom to play around with the scenarios for the future at any time. At 3:25 Central Time (1:25 Pacific Time) Sunday, I will be focused on only one thing, watching the Vikings beat the Packers. I am not delusional enough to think it will happen or even that it is likely. Aaron Rodgers is phenomenal in domes and the Packers play has improved even more than the Vikings in the past 3 weeks, plus they started at a MUCH higher level than we did at that point of the season. The Vikings CAN win, I hope they will win, but I'd give them about a 35% chance of winning given the reality that the Packers are a great team on top of NFL mountain since 2010 while the Vikings are a rebuilding team trying to get their players the type of experience the Packers already have in big games.

[Mothman]

They ARE winning REGULAR SEASON games with this model. I never said you couldn't win games, my argument was you can't get through the playoffs and win a superbowl with that model any longer. It'll be 10 years since the Bucs did it when this season is done. I'll 100% admit to being wrong if the Vikings go through the playoffs and win the superbowl, in fact I'd love to be wrong.

Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl less than 5 years ago, in 2008, and the strength of that team was their defense, not their passing game. Their offense was nothing special that year. Roethlisberger is obviously a better player than Ponder but you don't have to go all the way back to the Ravens and Bucs to find a team that relied more on defense than their QB to win it all. Heck, the 2007 Giants weren't ranked especially high on offense or defense at the end of the regular season but they came together, found the right balance and pulled off an upset to win the Super Bowl.